Bio Diversity PDF

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN ECOLOGY
G. Vishwanatha Reddy
K.UllasKaranth
N.SambaKumar
JagdishKrishnaswamy
KrithiK.Karanth
Recovering
Biodiversity in
Indian Forests
123
SpringerBriefs in Ecology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical

applications across a wide spectrum of elds. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical topics might include:
A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques
A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a
contextual literature review
A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
An in-depth case study or clinical example
A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10157
G. Vishwanatha Reddy K. Ullas Karanth

N. Samba Kumar Jagdish Krishnaswamy
Krithi K. Karanth
Recovering Biodiversity
in Indian Forests
G. Vishwanatha Reddy
Department of Forest
Government of Rajasthan
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
N. Samba Kumar
Wildlife Conservation Society India
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
K. Ullas Karanth
Wildlife Conservation Society
New York, NY, USA
Jagdish Krishnaswamy
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology
and the Environment
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Krithi K. Karanth
Wildlife Conservation Society
Global Conservation Program
New York, NY, USA
ISSN 2192-4759
ISSN 2192-4767 (electronic)
SpringerBriefs in Ecology
ISBN 978-981-10-0909-9
ISBN 978-981-10-0911-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0911-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938693
Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd.
Foreword
With 1.25 billion people teeming across Indias landmass, the biggest challenge that
faces our conservationists is to keep some of our irreplaceable wilderness inviolate
in order to conserve different forms of biodiversity.
After 40 years of being involved with both forests and wildlife, if there was one
issue that resulted in heated debate, it has been on the human use of both forests and
wildlife. This is why we have ended up with a Forest Rights Act for people and a
Wildlife Protection Act for wildlife. Both these laws confront rather than engage
with each other because the content of the former law is a result of a deep-rooted
ignorance of our natural systems.
Four decades ago, I watched Ranthambore National Park being transformed after
the resettlement of 12 villages away from its core. From a highly disturbed humandominated system, it became an inviolate wilderness. Not only did the habitat spring
back, but with it, the densities of both prey and predators rose sharply. There was
little science around in those days, and this seemed like the best strategy to enrich
and regenerate nature. In a way, it was common sense.
A decade ago, while serving as a member of the Prime Ministers Tiger Task
Force, I realised the ignorance of some members of this task force on the peopleforest issues. Some who knew little about eld realities would indulge in conversations that questioned the very need to resettle people out of protected areas or make
comments about how tigers and people should be able to live side by side. I would
groan in agony at the lack of depth and understanding that surrounded these issues.
It is this kind of ignorance that plagues our decision-making and policy. It is omnipresent in so many politicians and bureaucrats and even nongovernmental experts
who play critical roles to inuence policy by virtue of their presence in various
committees or advisory groups.
In this book, G. V. Reddy and his coauthors have done a remarkable job of using
scientic methodology to wipe out this fog of ignorance that clouds this issue. They
are crystal clear in their conclusions that human impacts appear to be key drivers of
biodiversity loss. Levels of human disturbance can alter species composition and
can affect their richness, diversity and abundance. Innovatively, the authors have
created a human disturbance index that incorporates hard metrics of human signs
v
vi
Foreword
and activities. This rigorous understanding of true human impacts is critical to

understanding the management of our protected areas. Very few protected areas are
truly inviolate, and it becomes vital for eld managers to minimise human disturbance in them.
We need to recognise the conclusions of this book and use them effectively in our
policies that are supposed to strengthen protected areas and critical tiger and wildlife habitats. India will always have natural habitats surrounded by human-dominated
landscapes, and it will be through conict resolution on the outer fringes and very
effective protection of the inner cores that we will be able to retain our richness in
biodiversity in all its components. It is therefore books like this that can inspire
innovative policy for constructive eld interventions.
This is especially true for monitoring the biodiversity components, and this book
study contains important tools to do this. The authors believe that it is a moment to
think out of the box and have approached this work on the public private partnership [PPP] model of wildlife monitoring suggesting that the forest ofcials need
to partner with specialists who can design and conduct such monitoring projects. I
wholeheartedly support this idea and believe that this is the only way to promote
better governance of a protected area. The authors call this an independent ecological audit: I believe it is much needed all over India in order to manage our nearly
700 protected areas better.
We need to follow conservation approaches and eld policies based on good eld
evidence. Sadly we do the opposite most of the time.
I hope this book will enlighten the average Indian forest manager so that he/she
can evaluate scientically the area under management. This will prevent frivolous
interventions like manipulating habitat or even interfering with the natural cycles of
animals. It is only then that he/she can take meaningful eld decisions. Just doing
this will be a rst big step in the right direction. I hope this book plays a signicant
part in ushering in change and in that process also changing the mindsets of how
eld managers think and act.
January 2016
New Delhi
Valmik Thapar
Acknowledgements
This book is resultant of eldwork carried by G. V. Reddy for his PhD programme.
We are all obliged to thank the co-supervisor of the project Dr. Anindya Sinha for
providing guidance. We thank the government of Rajasthan and the Karnataka
Forest Department for providing necessary permissions to conduct the eld studies
and the Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS), the Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Manipal University for their institutional support.
We are thankful to Mr. M. H. Shankara, Mr. M. N. Santosh and Mr. C. U. Santosh,
for the help in eldwork, and Prof. Sadananda, Mr. Sampat Kumar, Mr. V. Srinivas,
Dr. Ajith Kumar, Mr. D. V. Girish and Mr. Santosha Gubbi, for their help with the
data collection and analysis.
We thank Smt. Bina Kak, ex-Forest Minister of the Government of Rajasthan,
the late Mr. Fateh Singh Rathore, Mr. Valmik Thapar and Mr. P. S. Soma Sekhar
who provided moral support to the completion of the project. We express our highest appreciation to Dr. G. V. Reddys family members such as his father Sri. G. S.
Raja Reddy, wife Mrs. Shobha Reddy, children Mr. Anurag Reddy and Mr. Goutam
Reddy and brother Mr. G. Jayachandra Reddy for their unequivocal support provided to the project.
vii
Contents
Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India ...............................................

1.1 Global Context of Biodiversity Loss .................................................
1.1.1 General Background and Literature Review..........................
1.1.2 Challenges Posed by Human Impacts
on Biodiversity in Asia ..........................................................
1.1.3 Specic Drivers of Biodiversity Loss ....................................
1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches ..........................
1.2.1 Global Scenario .....................................................................
1.2.2 The Conservation Scenario in India.......................................
1.2.3 Patterns of Ownership and Management
of Protected Areas ..................................................................
1.2.4 Management of Protected Areas
in the Indian Context..............................................................
1.2.5 Integrating Surveys, Monitoring
and Management Objectives ..................................................
1
1
1
10
Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses ................................................

2.1 Study Area .........................................................................................
2.1.1 Geographic Location, Topography and Soils.........................
2.1.2 Vegetation of the Study Area .................................................
2.1.3 Wildlife and Biodiversity in the Study Area ..........................
2.1.4 Human Impacts on Wildlife and Habitats ..............................
2.1.5 Forest Management History...................................................
2.1.6 Present Management ..............................................................
2.1.7 Delineation of Management Regimes....................................
2.2 Research Hypotheses and Objectives ................................................
2.2.1 Objectives ..............................................................................
2.2.2 Target Biodiversity Components ...........................................
13
13
13
15
15
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
Survey Design, Field and Analytical Methods ........................................

3.1 The Overall Study Design..................................................................
3.2 Assessment of the Habitat Similarity ................................................
23
23
26
3
3
6
6
6
9
9
ix
Contents
3.3
Field Survey Methods ........................................................................

3.3.1 Overall Approach to Field Surveys ........................................
3.3.2 Plants......................................................................................
3.3.3 Bird Species and Guilds (Non-gallinaceous) .........................
3.3.4 Mammals and Gallinaceous Birds .........................................
3.3.5 Human Disturbances and Impacts .........................................
Analytical Methods ............................................................................
3.4.1 Assessing Species Richness ...................................................
3.4.2 Assessing Species Abundance ...............................................
3.4.3 Assessing Human Impacts and Disturbance ..........................
3.4.4 Comparisons of Attributes Across Management
and Access Regimes...............................................................
27
27
27
29
31
31
33
33
36
39
Results and Findings .................................................................................

4.1 Habitat Similarity...............................................................................
4.1.1 Assessments of Habitat Similarity .........................................
4.2 Assessments of Status of Biodiversity Components..........................
4.2.1 Plant Species Richness ..........................................................
4.2.2 Bird Species Richness............................................................
4.2.3 Mammal Species Richness ....................................................
4.2.4 Abundances of Plant Species .................................................
4.2.5 Abundances of Bird Species ..................................................
4.2.6 Abundances of Mammalian Species ......................................
4.3 Human Disturbance Levels ................................................................
4.4 Comparison of Status of Biodiversity Components
Across Management Regimes ...........................................................
4.4.1 Plants......................................................................................
4.4.2 Birds .......................................................................................
4.4.3 Mammals ...............................................................................
4.4.4 Normalised Difference Vegetation Index ...............................
4.4.5 Human Disturbance Index .....................................................
4.5 Impact of Habitat Variables and Human Disturbance
Factors on the Status of Biodiversity Components ............................
4.5.1 Plants......................................................................................
4.5.2 Birds .......................................................................................
4.5.3 Mammals ...............................................................................
4.5.4 Human Disturbance Impacts on Biodiversity
After Controlling for Habitat .................................................
43
43
43
45
45
45
45
49
52
53
55
3.4
Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................

5.1 General Patterns of Effect of Human
Disturbances on Biodiversity .............................................................
5.2 Cumulative Potential Future Impacts.................................................
5.3 Implications for Management of Forests and Wildlife ......................
5.4 Monitoring Biodiversity Reliably ......................................................
5.5 Civil Society Participation in Conservation Monitoring ...................
5.6 Broader Policy Implications of the Study ..........................................
39
55
55
61
64
66
67
68
69
71
72
73
85
85
87
87
88
89
90
Contents
Appendices .......................................................................................................
Appendix I....................................................................................................
Appendix II ..................................................................................................
xi
93
93
99
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 103
Chapter 1
Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India
1.1
1.1.1
Global Context of Biodiversity Loss

General Background and Literature Review
Global biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate (Meffe and Carroll 1994;

Dirzo and Raven 2003; Butchart et al. 2010). Widespread species extinctions are
leading to productivity loss and stability of the ecosystems, in turn, altering the
ecosystem processes (Chapin et al. 2000; Stachowicz et al. 2007; Cardinale et al.
2011; Wardle et al. 2011). Growing human pressures have altered most of the natural habitats across the globe (Sanderson et al. 2002; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Laurance
et al. 2012; Geldmann et al. 2013). Although, deforestation rates vary in different
parts of the world, tropical forests are the worst affected biomes. Around 274,615 km2
or 1.4 % of forests was lost from 2001 to 2005 (Asner et al. 2009). Large forest
blocks have also been fragmented by deforestation, creating extensive forest edges
(Broadbent et al. 2008). Human populations are responsible for the depletion of
biodiversity through several devastating activities, such as excessive exploitation of
forest products, hunting, harvesting, pollution and introduction of invasive species
(Robinson and Bennett 2000; Rodrigues et al. 2004). Such unsustainable exploitation is driving a major decline of biodiversity (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971; Terborgh
and van Schaik 2002; Rodrigues et al. 2004; Laurance et al. 2012). This cumulative
consumption is altering finely balanced and intricately weaved biodiversity web
structure resulting in extinction, reduced abundance, distribution and genetic diversity of species (Pereira et al. 2012). The decline may render a particular species
functionally extinct along with adverse impacts on the ecosystem processes
(Sekercioglu et al. 2004). It is fairly well established that ecosystems with rich biodiversity are quite stable, resilient in recovering from natural disasters apart from
regular functions of productivity and providing various ecosystem services. On the
contrary, ecosystems lose their productivity and power to recoup when they lose
biodiversity (Hector and Bagchi 2007; Fox and Kerr 2012; Cardinale et al. 2012).
G.V. Reddy et al., Recovering Biodiversity in Indian Forests,
SpringerBriefs in Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0911-2_1
Though a few species appear to contribute more to the ecosystem productivity, other
species acting as complementary species contribute to the overall productivity and
the ecosystem services. The loss of such complementary species also leads to
reduced functioning of the ecosystem. The biodiversity components, intertwined as
a food web, have a complex structure and interactions. Loss of these biodiversity
components, especially top predators, has a cascading effect on the producers of the
ecosystem. The biodiversity loss results in increased epidemics and pests, changed
vegetation structure and fire frequency (Estes et al. 2011). Twenty-five percent of
the top protected areas with rich biodiversity contribute up to 57 % of the household
income to the local poor communities (Turner et al. 2012; Watson et al. 2014). The
conversion of natural terrestrial habitats to agricultural land and habitations is the
prime driver of the biodiversity loss, followed by intensified depletion and overexploitation. All species are not affected equally by this change (Pereira and Daily
2006)generalist species may flourish, while habitat specialists become extinct
(Stoke et al. 2009). The biodiversity change in terms of population and species composition will have great impact on food production and ecosystem services like,
water purification and pest or disease control (Cardinale et al. 2011; Cebellos 2015).
Vertebrate taxa in general and mammals in particular are the worst affected ones
(Schipper et al. 2008; Hoffman et al. 2010). It is estimated that 1159 vertebrate species have been lost and 16,928 other species have become highly threatened since
last 500 years (Vie et al. 2009). If these trends continue, over the next five decades,
at least 565 mammalian species are predicted to go extinct (Dirzo and Raven 2003),
and about 5487 mammalian species (25 % of all the terrestrial mammals (n = 1137))
are threatened by extinction. Among mammals, carnivores are more vulnerable to
the extinction because of unique biological traits such as higher position in the food
chain, conflict-prone behaviour and low population densities (Ceballos et al. 2005;
Schipper et al. 2008; Sodhi et al. 2010; Cardinale et al. 2011).
Birds are also severely affected by deforestation and hunting (BirdLife
International 2000; Sodhi et al. 2004). Many tropical birds are habitat specific,
occur at low densities or have poor dispersal abilities. These characteristics increase
their vulnerability to extinction (Terborgh 1990; Laurance et al. 1997). More than
830 threatened bird species are found in tropical forests (BirdLife International
2000). Countries, such as Singapore, have recorded the loss of 67 % of its original
bird life since last 100 years (Castelletta et al. 2000). Habitat destruction is considered to be the prime cause for the local extinction of bird species (Pimm and Raven
2000; Gaston et al. 2003).
Furthermore, these negative human impacts increase manifold in South Asia
because of far higher human population densities than elsewhere.
1.1 Global Context of Biodiversity Loss
1.1.2
Challenges Posed by Human Impacts on Biodiversity

in Asia
Human impacts on biodiversity, especially on larger vertebrates in human-dominated

landscape of South Asia, are poorly documented. There are only a few sporadic
studies on specific impacts such as local hunting on large ungulate densities
(Madhusudan and Karanth 2000; Velho et al. 2012), minor forest produce collection
on regeneration of the indigenous plants (Murali et al. 1996), structure and composition of plant (Kumar and Shahabuddin 2005) or bird communities (Kumar and
Shahabuddin 2006) and human resource use on animal habitat quality (Barve et al.
2005; Karanth et al. 2006; Nagendra et al. 2010; Vaidyanathan et al. 2010).
In India, 25 large mammal species have gone locally extinct from 14 to 96 % of
their historic ranges across the century (Karanth et al. 2010; Ceballos et al. 2015).
In this context, a comparative evaluation of varied human impacts on different
forms of biodiversity in ecologically comparable habitats under differing management and human access regimes would be the most useful to a biodiversity
manager.
1.1.3
Specific Drivers of Biodiversity Loss
Various human activities of forest resource use are known to be the major drivers of
biodiversity loss. High human population density, per capita consumption and
excessive resource extraction are recognised as root causes of extinction (Terborgh
and Peres 2002; Ehrlich and Holdren 1971; Cardinale et al. 2012). Proximate causes
of forest biodiversity loss are habitat conversion, livestock grazing, habitat destruction, degradation (Brooks et al. 2002; Cardinale et al. 2011), fragmentation (Fahrig
2003), hunting (Robinson and Bennett 2000; Madhusudan and Karanth 2000, 2002,
2005; Velho et al. 2012) and unsustainable logging and collection of forest products
(Murali et al. 1996; Lindenmayer and Noss 2006). Some impacts are of local origin
such as grazing (Rahmani 2003; Middleton 2003), fires and biomass removal
(Somanathan and Borges 2000), while others are due to wide regional drivers like
logging, market-driven non-timber forest produce (NTFP) collection and developmental projects such as roads, dams and power lines, etc.
The cumulative impacts of anthropological pressures are enormous across the
Indian subcontinent, for example, 90 % loss of vegetation cover in Indo-Burma
regions, 77 % in the Western GhatsSri Lanka region, 75 % in the Himalayan region
and an equal portion in dry tropical forests of central India (Singh and Kushwaha
2008). Such impacts substantially alter the ecosystem, leading to species losses and
habitat insularisation.
The growing human populations and their rising aspirations pose a great challenge to conserving biological diversity. Over the last 60 years, human population
has grown from 390 million to more than a 1.2 billion (Directorate of Census
Operation 2004). Furthermore, the cattle population of 350 million grew to 520 million during this period, adding enormous pressure on remaining forests and pastures. Per capita forest declined to just 0.064 ha or just 10 % of the 0.64 ha per
person globally in this time span (Singh and Kushwaha 2008).
1.1.3.1
Habitat Loss
Habitat loss, leading to species loss, is the most obvious effect of human disturbance (Heywood 1995; Fahrig 1997, 2001). It continues even in the biodiversity
hotspots, and if we do not succeed in stopping it, significant portion of biodiversity
will be lost (Myers et al. 2000; Kotiaho et al. 2005; Ceballos and Ehrlich 2006; Koh
and Ghazoul 2010; Krauss et al. 2010). Endemic species are usually the worst
affected and most extinction prone because they are often narrowly habitat specific
and intolerant to habitat modification (Didham 1997; Brooks et al. 2002). From a
purely human perspective, a habitat loss is also closely associated with the loss of
ecosystem services (Dobson et al. 2006; Reyer et al. 2009; Costanza et al. 2014).
Loss of species at higher trophic levels will lead to the loss of ecosystem services
(Jones et al. 1998; Chapin III et al. 2000). These losses may be negligible in the
beginning, but there may be a virtual collapse of ecosystem services eventually
(Dobson et al. 2006; Reyer et al. 2009).
1.1.3.2
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation leads to the loss of biodiversity in smaller and isolated

patches (Andren 1994; Bender et al. 1998; Noss and Csuti 1997; Fahrig 2003). The
insularisation without any chances of wider genetic exchanges may also lead to
local extinctions (Brown and Huchings 1997). Fragmentation can lead to decline in
population size by 80 % of the original size depending on the biology of the species
involved (Wiegand et al. 2005; Noss et al. 2006). Fragmentation and habitat loss are
also directly associated with the loss of overall species richness (Terborgh and
Winter 1983; Debinski and Holt 2000).
Forest roads and timber trails are major reasons for fragmentation creating more
forest edges (Ritters et al. 2000) and islands of populations. The timber roads affect
regeneration of forest species seriously; the problem persists even after many year
of cessation of timber extraction activities (Malcolm and Ray 2000). Often roads
provide with the increased access to animals making them vulnerable to hunting
(Wilkie et al. 2000). Power lines, pipelines, fences, canals, human settlements,
dams, mines, overgrazing by livestock and colonisation by invasive species can be
drivers of fragmentation in specific contexts (Noss et al. 2006; DeFries et al. 2010).
Effects of fragmentation are varied and far reaching. Habitat fragmentation has
been reported to contribute to nearly 15 % of species loss (Weigand et al. 2005),
besides affecting resource availability that, in turn, influences animal distributions
(Norton and Griffiths 1995). Fragmentation has also effected lesser-known changes
1.1 Global Context of Biodiversity Loss
like plant regeneration (Turner et al. 1996), animal mortality (Terborgh and Winter
1983) and other processes determining population dynamics. Studies have also documented the effects of fragmentation on animal social organisation and behaviour
(e.g. Lawes et al. 2000), dispersal, insularisation (e.g. Dinerstein et al. 2006) and
ripple effects along the food chain (e.g. Donaldson et al. 2002).
1.1.3.3
Habitat Degradation
Human disturbances alter the regeneration drastically and change forest structure
and composition (Horn and Hickey 1991; Hong et al. 1995). Timber harvesting,
particularly clear-felling, alters the ecosystem drastically through elimination of
key tree species. Along with removal of old trees, species living or depending on
those trees get eliminated, and this affects their local populations (Thiollay 1997).
In contrast, selective timber harvesting considered innocuous to ecosystems has a
range of associated impacts. Selective harvesting of timber reduces ground cover
and affects species, such as terrestrial and insectivorous birds and mammals
(Thiollay 1997). Logging does not accommodate the specific feeding requirements
of these highly evolved and specialised feeders, in terms of dietary specialisation,
restricted feeding strata, rendering bird and mammalian species vulnerable to logging interventions. Selective logging also has been found to affect the bird populations, for example, leading to declines of bird population of 94.6 % compared to
original bird population in North America (Terborgh 1989). Many hunted birds and
mammals are responsible for seed dispersal and influence the structure of the tropical forests. Along with this, the collection of forest products by humans is leading
to the local extinction of species and disruption of ecological functions.
1.1.3.4
Hunting
Worldwide local and market-based hunting of terrestrial vertebrates is a major

driver of biodiversity loss (Robison and Bennett 2000). Even forests unaffected by
logging are often devoid of animal species because of hunting (Redford 1992).
Although superficially, subsistence hunting appears harmless in terms of quantity, its impact often surpasses commercial hunting. Overall both types of hunting
practices are detrimental to all the major faunal groups, for example, non-primates
(Redford 1992), primates and birds (Parry et al. 2009) and ungulates (MilnerGulland et al. 2003), and are found to be unsustainable in the long run (Robinson
and Bennett 2000).
In the forest areas of Western Ghats in India, despite strict law enforcement
against illegal hunting, constant low-intensity hunting has greatly affected largebodied mammals (Madhusudan and Karanth 2000, 2002, 2005). Similarly, subsistence hunting widely prevalent in northeastern states of India has resulted in empty
forest syndrome, with otherwise well-stocked tropical forests being virtually
devoid of larger animals (Datta 2002). Hunting seriously affects natural prey
availability (Robinson and Bennett 2000; Kumara and Singh 2004) and pushes
predators to depend on the livestock for food (Madhusudan and Karanth 2002). Prey
densities ultimately determine predator densities (Karanth et al. 2004), and they are
often the worst affected by local hunting.
1.1.3.5
Impacts of Other Extractive Activities
While the impacts of logging, dams, mines and land conversion on different components of biodiversity are starkly clear, impacts of some other extractive uses are
subtle, difficult to detect and therefore least understood. Recent studies in India
have shown how vegetation structure, diversity and composition have been altered
by fuel wood collection and livestock grazing (Kumar and Shahabuddin 2005;
Shahabuddin and Prasad 2004; Barve et al. 2005) and how extractive uses of forests
have affected forest regeneration (Daniels et al. 1995; Murthy et al. 2002) and suppressed native species (Sagar and Singh 2004). Such extractions over a prolonged
period are found to affect the ecosystem adversely (Murali et al. 1996; Kumar and
Shahabuddin 2005). Such local uses, often promoted as conservation tools that
provide livelihood options, in fact have severe deleterious effects on biodiversity.
1.2
1.2.1
Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches

Global Scenario
Establishment of protected areas or nature reserves has been a major strategy to

preserve biodiversity by majority of the countries of the world (Bruner et al. 2001;
Walston 2010; Watson et al. 2014). IUCN has recognised six different categories of
protected areas depending on the purpose and extent of human exploitation (IUCN
1994; Dudley 2008). These include strict nature reserves with no exploitation of any
kind to sustainable use and nature reserves with a more open human access to forest resources (Dudley 2008). Globally, the natural biodiversity is now almost confined to 12 % of geographical area in various categories of protected areas (IUCN
2003; Jenkins and Joppa 2009). Given this wide variation in types of protected
areas, it is important for managers of biodiversity to identify which type of protected area is likely to be most effective in a specific ecological and social context.
1.2.2
The Conservation Scenario in India
India is one of the 17 mega-biodiversity countries, with a mere 4.79 % of the land
under protected areas; it still harbours 12 % of the worlds flora and 7.28 % of global
faunal species (GOI 2009). Three distinct public land management approaches are
adapted with varying consequences for biodiversity conservation in India. These are
1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches
(1) predominantly protected areas which include National Parks, Sanctuaries and
reserved or protected forests which are under direct administrative control of state;
(2) community conservation areas mostly outside the protected areas and traditionally owned by village communities, which are small and spread across nation; and
(3) biosphere reserves which are biodiversity-rich large landscapes that encompass
protected areas, adjoining forest areas, rivers and private lands including agricultural lands (GOI 2009). During the last 50 years, protected areas evolved into an
umbrella for conservation of biodiversity (Rodgers and Panwar 1988).
1.2.2.1
Protected Areas in India: National Parks and Sanctuaries
The protected areas are designated legally under the provisions of Wildlife Protection
Act 1972 as National Parks or Sanctuaries. National Parks and Sanctuaries are managed by Forest Departments at the state level, as per Wildlife Protection Act (WPA)
1972 and with latest amendments in 1991. The protected areas are mostly state initiated (Gadgil and Guha 1995). Originally, no commercial exploitation of any kind
was allowed in the National Parks and Sanctuaries. Prior to 1991 amendments in
WPA 1972, there was some kind of exploitation allowed in Sanctuaries. There are
many villages landlocked within Sanctuaries; legally, there are no provisions for the
villagers to use sanctuary resources.
In India, there are 99 National Parks and more than 513 Sanctuaries, covering
4.79 % of geographical area to protect biodiversity (GOI 2009). National Parks are
declared and managed as per provisions under section 35, while Sanctuaries are
declared under section 18 and managed as per provisions under sections 2734 of
WPA. No human activities are permitted in National Parks without the approval of
the Chief Wildlife Warden. Certain kinds of human activities are allowed within
Sanctuaries to meet the bona fide needs of people living within and around protected areas. Activities like grazing are totally banned in National Parks.
The IUCN system of classification of protected areas is not fully aligned with the
categorisation followed in India. Very few protected areas in India fall under
Category II, and majority of them fall under Category IV. All National Parks and
Sanctuaries in India are owned by the state, with no scope for privately owned
National Parks and Sanctuaries. However, there are private land holdings within
these protected areas (Kothari et al. 1989; Karanth and Karanth 2007; Karanth
2007). Management efforts in these protected areas include protection to reduce
human activities which are detrimental to biota, habitat manipulation to meet
exigencies like fire and water shortage and mitigation of human wildlife conflicts
and habitat restoration activities like weed removal.
The principal rationale behind management is that wilderness can be recovered
and restored if given an opportunity and freed from human pressures. This involves
exclusion of human interferences through strict enforcement of law and of consumptive human uses to minimise human impacts.
1.2.2.2
Community Conserved Areas
Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) may be either traditionally or legally declared

protected areas; however, there are provisions under WPA 1972 (Section 18) to
convert even traditional community owned CCAs to legally defined protected areas.
Any government area adjoining National Parks and Sanctuaries, which is of conservation significance (e.g. a corridor connecting two protected areas), can be declared
as a Conservation Reserve under section 36A of WPA 1972. Areas of conservation
value protected by private individuals or communities are notified as Community
Reserves under section 36C of the WPA 1972. Consent of the communities is a
prerequisite for declaration of such CCAs (WPA 1972). Many traditional societies
preserved biodiversity-rich areas because of unique belief and value systems and
revered them as sacred groves, homes of Gods, spaces for ancestors, spirits or places
for spiritual reflection and cultural values (Pathak 2004).
Moreover, Community Conserved Areas are often very small and have therefore
inherent limitations in protecting large-bodied, landscape-level species, endangered
species and ecologically sensitive species. The CCAs are supplementary to larger
conservation sites in a landscape mosaic with other types of protected areas (Ostrom
and Nagendra 2007; Shahabuddin and Rao 2010). These CCAs (e.g. sacred groves
in Western Ghats of India) are found to protect less than 50 % of the species compared to the strictly protected areas nearby (Bhagawat et al. 2005) and often exclude
endemic species. CCAs are also considered as instruments to achieve social justice
(Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005). Participation of entire community in conservation of CCA is, however, quite uncommon with socially dominant classes wielding decision-making power over resource use (Pathak 2004; Kothari 2006; Nagendra
2007). The CCAs are complex in nature in terms of management, require welldefined, socially cohesive group with strong authority. In absence of such arrangements, they fail to protect biodiversity (Shahabuddin and Rao 2010).
1.2.2.3
Biosphere Reserves
Biosphere reserves (BRs) are large areas both terrestrial and marine, defined under
the Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme of UNESCO, and they do not have any
legal recognition. The scheme was initiated in 1986 to conserve key ecosystems.
Sustainable development, protection, research, monitoring, education, training and
information exchange are major components of the scheme. So far 14 biosphere
reserves in India have been created covering an area of 55,762 km2.
Biosphere reserves are conceived as places where both people and nature coexist; these are representative areas of biomes. They encompass protected areas and
adjacent areas inhabited by people, who are considered an integral part of the ecosystem. BR manages both wilderness areas and landscapes manipulated by humans.
Biodiversity conservation is as important as human welfare; coexistence is the
underlying approach. BRs have three zones of managementcore area which is
largely unmanipulated natural forest area, free of human interference; buffer zones
which adjoining core areas, mainly meant to protect core areas, with limited activities (include tourism, restoration zone, demonstration zones and education zones);
and transition zones which include croplands, manipulative zones and intensive recreational zones. BRs are managed based on provisions of National Conservation
Strategy and Policy, National Action Plan on Biodiversity (1197), National Forest
Policy (1988), Environmental Protection Act (1986) and Wildlife Protection Act
(1972), with amendments in 1991. BRs consider more inclusive approaches of conservation, with greater scope for peoples participation in conservation (GOI 2007).
1.2.3
Patterns of Ownership and Management of Protected

Areas
Worldwide, different forms of forest management and conservation strategies have

been proposed for arresting biodiversity loss. State or governmental ownership
(mostly in Asia), community ownership of land or large private or corporate holdings (mostly in Africa and Latin America) are typical management models (Brandon
et al. 1998; Terborgh et al. 2002). In India, there are two broad types of conservation
area ownership models. First, where forest lands are owned by the government with
different degrees of legal access for local users and the second, in which land ownership is under communities or individual families as in some parts of northeastern
Indian Hill states.
In India, biodiversity conservation practice is focused on a species and protected
area-centred approach. It is practised under the legal framework of the Indian Forest
Act (1927) and the Wildlife Protection Act (1972). Several such species- or habitatcentred approaches are recognised, including centrally sponsored schemes, National
Wildlife Action Plan (1984), National Biodiversity Action Plan, Project Tiger and
Project Elephant, are being implemented. The policy frame and substantial proportion of the funding needs are provided by the union government, whereas partial
funding and management are the responsibility of the state governments (GOI
2009).
1.2.4
Management of Protected Areas in the Indian Context
After enactment of Wildlife Protection Act in 1972, many areas earlier classified as
Reserved Forests under the Indian Forest Act of 1927, were declared to be
Sanctuaries or National Parks. The expansion of such protected areas was rapid during 19701990: at the beginning of 1970, there were 4 National Parks and 61
Sanctuaries, which grew to 51 National Parks and 164 Sanctuaries by 1980, and by
1990, the National Parks had increased to 71 and Sanctuaries to 417 (WII 2007).
10
The basic model of conservation implemented in these reserves is preservationist in nature (Karanth et al. 1999; Madhusudan and Karanth 2000; Rangarajan et al.
2014) that involves enforcing antihunting laws and preventing the adverse impacts
of land conversion, fires, livestock grazing, forest product removal, logging and any
encroachments. Although some larger mammals and their habitats recovered as a
result of such management measures (Karanth 2002; Madhusudan and Mishra
2003), the reduction of impacts and recovery processes has often not been quantitatively documented.
1.2.5
Integrating Surveys, Monitoring and Management

Objectives
Successful biodiversity conservation can only be based on reliable measures that

assess biodiversity and human impacts at various scales. Many models, approaches
and principles have been suggested to measure biodiversity and human impacts at
regional, biome level and national level at different spatial scales (Noss 1990, 1999;
Yoccoz et al. 2001; Green et al. 2005; Nichols and Williams 2006). A systematically
planned, unified monitoring system can provide basis for future adaptive management (Balmford et al. 2005; Buckland et al. 2005; Nichols and Williams 2006).
The wildlife monitoring protocols being followed by protected area managers in
India, however, are often total count or census-based. These rely on the questionable premise that all the animals in the surveyed area are detected and counted. This
basic assumption is flawed, both from statistical and biological perspectives as is
now well-recognised (Williams et al. 2002). This has been clearly demonstrated in
the case of the earlier censuses of tigers (Karanth et al. 2003) as well as the case
more recent sampling based efforts on assessing elephant populations (Goswami
et al. 2007; Jathanna et al. 2015) and tigers (Gopalaswamy et al. 2015). Although
advances in the statistics and quantitative ecology in past two to three decades have
effectively addressed the key problem of imperfect detections that dogged these
faulty methods (Yoccoz et al. 2001; Gopalaswamy et al. 2015), Indian managers
have been slow to adopt them.
Fundamental to the modern approaches of sampling is the following canonical
estimator that lays out the central idea:
N C / PA
(1.1)
where N = the parameter of interest to the investigator; this could be number of individual animals in the surveyed area or number of species in the surveyed area or
number of patches of habitat that possess a certain attribute (e.g. the presence of an
animal/plant species of interest) in the surveyed area.
A = sampling fraction; the proportion of the overall area that was actually sampled
and surveyed (e.g. 10 % of all area).
11
P = the detection probability; the probability that an individual animal or a species

or a patch of habitat possessing the desired attribute was actually observed/
detected and counted during the survey.
C = the count statistic resulting from the field survey; the detected/observed numbers of individual animals or species or patches of habitat possessing the desired
attribute, which were counted during the survey.
Of course, the canonical estimator only provides an overall representative schematic of key relationships among parameters and count statistics involved in wildlife sampling. For any practical application, it needs to be made explicit to include
the specific field method and survey design employed to count animals, as well as
ecological factors related to the species and habitat being surveyed.
Reliable and practical statistical models (Williams et al. 2002) that accommodate
the biological attributes of the surveyed objects as well as logistical and analytical
considerations of surveys have been in fact developed. However, as pointed out
elsewhere (see Karanth et al. 2003; Gopalaswamy et al. 2015), survey methods traditionally employed in India at great cost and effort to count flagship species such
as tigers have largely failed to incorporate these recent advances.
The twin challenges facing wildlife managers currently are to measure how biodiversity is faring under various regimes of access and management that prevail in a
specific conservation context in India and to use the most reliable modern methods
to make such measurements. In this study, we set out to meet these challenges. Here,
we have assessed the status of three components of terrestrial biodiversity: plants,
birds and large mammals in a study area covering different resource access and
protection levels. We have tried to employ as far as possible statistically reliable and
cost-effective survey methods that fully address the problems of imperfect detections and inadequate spatial sampling (Buckland et al. 2005). Our study also aims
to examine impacts of human activities on different forms of biodiversity under
different levels of physical access, strictness of protection and resource extraction
regimes in areas that are ecologically similar.
Although this study addresses the above issues in the specific context of
Nagarahole, Karnataka, we believe its results presented here are relevant to the conservation and management of a wide range of habitats and species in protected areas
in India that represent similar ecological and social contexts.
Chapter 2
Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses
2.1
Study Area
The NagaraholeKallahallaThitimathi sub-landscape was chosen as our study site

after examining other possible sites in the Malenad landscape (Karanth et al. 2011)
of the Western Ghats of Karnataka (Das et al. 2006). The study area was found to be
the most suitable because it falls under three different forest management regimes
and provides a continuum along a gradient of protection levels, human access and
resource extraction. It also has a history of social stability with clearly laid down
forest protection and management laws.
2.1.1
Geographic Location, Topography and Soils
The study area covers the northern part of the Nagarahole National Park (officially
designated as Rajiv Gandhi National Park) adjoining Mavukal and Devmachi
Reserve Forests (RFs) of Virajpet Forest Division (FD) and a small portion of
Anechowkur RFs of Hunsur FD with a total area of 261 km2 (1221219 N latitude and 75567611 E longitude) at the foothills of Western Ghats (Fig. 2.1).
The study area includes forest blocks called Hatghat RF, Arkeri RF, Kachuvanahalli
State Forest (all within Nagarahole National Park) and Mavukal, Devamachi and
Anechowkur RF outside of the National Park area (Fig. 2.1).
The terrain is gently undulating with the steep hills in Mavukal RF acting as a
barrier to block easy access to villagers to the north of the study area. Mavukal Betta
is at the highest point in the region (altitude 1224 m). The study area is well drained
with several rivers and streams (Fig. 2.1). The soils are loamy, clay loamy and deep.
The precipitation occurs mainly during June to September (south-west monsoons),

13
14
Fig. 2.1 Map showing locations of human settlements and antipoaching camps (APCs) within
each of the three management regimes prevalent in the study area. Inset map shows the location of
study area within India
2.1 Study Area
15
and the average rainfall ranges between 1000 and 1500 mm. Annual temperature
ranges from a minimum of 10 C in the winter to the maximum of 35 C during the
summer.
2.1.2
Vegetation of the Study Area
The study area is covered in moist deciduous forests of type 3B/C2 under Champion
and Seth (1968) classification. The dominant tree species are generally leafless during February to April. The important tree species found in the study area are
Dalbergia latifolia, Terminalia paniculata, Terminalia tomentosa, Tectona grandis,
Lagerstroemia lanceolata, Toona ciliata, Albizia sp., Adina cordifolia and
Anogeissus latifolia. During the last 60 years of forest management, some of the
patches of these natural forests were converted into teak plantations. The middle
canopy has Phyllanthus emblica, Grewia tiliaefolia, Cassia fistula, Kydia calycina,
Gmelina arborea, Bauhinia racemosa, Butea monosperma, Cordia myxa and the
bamboo Bambusa arundinacea. Undergrowth species include Desmodium pulchellum, Helicteres isora and Cipadessa fruticosa, but exotic invasive species such as
Lantana camara, Eupatorium odoratum and Parthenium hysterophorus are now
dominant.
Low-lying swamps, locally named hadlus, are common and form a unique characteristic feature within the study area. These hadlus possess clay soils and get
waterlogged during rainy season and retain moisture throughout the year. Because
of their high soil moisture content, hadlus have a round the year growth of ungulate
forage including grasses and sedges.
The forest vegetation and bioclimatic maps produced by the French Institute,
Pondicherry, in collaboration with Karnataka and Kerala Forest Departments
(Pascal et al. 1982) show similarity in the composition and structure of vegetation
within the study area (Fig. 2.2). The vegetation consists of dense moist deciduous
climax forests and degradations with Lagerstroemia microcarpaTectona grandis
Dillenia pentagyna type and dry deciduous forests with Anogeissus latifoliaTectona grandisTerminalia tomentosa type, thus consisting of both woodlands to
savanna woodlands varieties of forests. The study area also has old teak monoculture plantations (Fig. 2.2). This ecological similarity prevalent in the study area
enables investigation of the effects of different management regimes within the
study area as manifested through various intensities of human pressure.
2.1.3
Wildlife and Biodiversity in the Study Area
Nagarahole National Park is rich in wildlife with 38 species of large mammals,

more than 270 species of birds, 32 species of reptiles, many fishes and amphibians
(Karanth and Sunquist 1992, 1995; Karanth 1995). The diverse mammalian fauna
16
Fig. 2.2 Map showing the main forest vegetation types prevalent within the study area (Source:
Pascal et al. 1982)
2.1 Study Area
17
include seven large terrestrial herbivores and the three arboreal mammalselephant
Elephas maximus, gaur Bos frontalis, sambar Rusa unicolor, chital Axis axis, wild
pig Sus scrofa, muntjac Muntiacus muntjak and mouse deer Moschiola indica and
bonnet monkey Macaca radiata, Hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus and
Malabar giant squirrel Ratufa indica (all scientific nomenclature follows Wilson
and Reeder 2005).
Nagarahole National Park is recognised as an Important Bird Area (BirdLife
International 2011) in India, with over 270 species of birds recorded. The rare birds
include Malabar trogon Harpactes fasciatus, Malabar pied hornbill Anthracoceros
coronatus and the globally vulnerable Nilgiri wood pigeon Columba elphinostonii.
2.1.4
Human Impacts on Wildlife and Habitats
Poaching of larger mammals, particularly ungulates, is sometimes a serious problem in the study area. Hunting by local communities for obtaining the meat is the
biggest threat to the mammals in the national park (Madhusudan and Karanth 2000).
Other threats include illegal felling of valuable timber tree species, illegal
removal of various NTFP, land encroachments on periphery of human settlements,
diversion of water flow to nearby coffee plantations and overgrazing by village
livestock.
The study area is surrounded by densely populated areas under coffee cultivation
to the west and dryland agriculture to the east. There are multiple-use RFs to the
north and strictly protected parts of the national park to the south (Fig. 2.1).
Furthermore, there are 11 human settlements, with a total population of about 440
families of tribals of Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba and Yerava groups within the study
area (Madhusudan and Karanth 2000; Appayya 2001). Traditionally, these tribal
families depend on the forests for their needs of fuel wood, timber and a few roots
and tubers for consumption. Some illegal hunting is done by them with the meat
being shared between the hunters and the accomplices (Madhusudan and Karanth
2000). Sometimes, these tribals also act as guides to illegal hunters from outside
who bring in firearms.
As a cumulative consequence, the human settlements within the park and adjoining villages exert varying levels of anthropogenic pressures on the habitat and wildlife. The type and intensity of these pressures vary depending on the proximity of
human settlements and access to the forests as well as the population size, village
community composition and above all strictness of law enforcement that prevails
during any period.
18
2.1.5
Forest Management History
The entire study area was declared as a Reserved Forest (or State Forest) in the
nineteenth century, thus halting the clearing of forests for agriculture. The primary
management purpose was revenue generation, timber production and provision of
usufructs to the local residents. Therefore, historically these forests in the study area
were primarily managed for timber production during early and mid-twentieth century. As the area was quite accessible to transportation, best available timber was
removed.
Indias first, rather weak law to regulate hunting was enacted in 1955. Under this
law, Hatghat and Arkeri RFs (together with Nalkeri RF) were notified as Nagarahole
Game Sanctuary in 1955. Legal hunting was forbidden, although the protection was
weak. Indias strong law, the Wildlife Protection Act, came into force in1972. Under
this law, hunting became an offence with severe punishments and habitat destruction in the form of logging, the collection of forest products was prohibited, and
areas could be declared as a National Park, which was the highest level of legal
protection possible. Both Hatghat and Arkeri RFs were declared as a part of
Nagarahole National Park (together with Kachuvanahalli, Veerana Hosahalli,
Nalkeri, Kakana Kote and Metikuppe State Forests). A seriousness on-ground protection began in Hatghat RF, but the lack of management focus, multiple management responsibilities and fragmented configuration with easy human access meant
that human impacts continued much more severely in Arkeri RF (and Kachuvanahalli),
although they were legally a part of the National Park. However, in the mid-1994,
the entire National Park was brought under a unified administration as the Hunsur
Wildlife Division based at Hunsur and under the command of a single Deputy
Conservator of Forests.
2.1.6
Present Management
The reserved forests of Arkeri and Hatghat (and Kachuvanahalli) are inside the
Nagarahole National Park. Here, the main focus is on the protection of wildlife and
biodiversity. Therefore, all forms of legal forest exploitation are prohibited. These
areas are meant to be intensively patrolled for the protection of the wildlife and
habitat. However, the people in settlements located within the park or close to its
boundaries continue to do some level of illegal forest exploitation and to a lesser
extent an illegal hunting. At strategic locations that are vulnerable for poaching, the
park management maintains antipoaching patrol camps. The Hatghat RF, Arkeri RF
and Kachuvanahalli SF have a good network of roads useful for patrolling and
protection.
The Mavukal and Devmachi RF areas have relatively poor network of roads due
to the topography and other reasons. These forest areas were included under teak
improvement management circle until mid-1990s and were logged heavily
2.1 Study Area
19
(Mishra 2001). However, because of legal directions issued by the Supreme Court
of India in 1996, all forms of the forest extraction are currently suspended. Unlike
inside the national park, however, there are no focused antipoaching patrol camps in
these RFs. Although, the hunting is illegal even here, the emphasis of the forest
management is not on the protection of wildlife.
2.1.7
Delineation of Management Regimes
Keeping in view this background, we have noted that two broad alternative wildlife
conservation models have been advocated in India: (1) a model based on preservation at its core (Karanth 1998; Madhusudan and Karanth 2000) and (2) a model
based on sustainable resource use by local people (Gadgil and Guha 1992; Kothari
et al. 1996).
However, a practical problem in evaluating such broad generic models of wildlife conservation is that these are not locally context specific and thus not sufficiently evidence based. The effectiveness of these two alternative and contrasting
conservation approaches can be compared only by rigorously and quantitatively
measuring and comparing the status of biodiversity and wildlife among otherwise
ecologically similar sites but with different degrees of human access, uses and
impacts. Our study aimed to bridge this gap through a rigorous and quantitative
evaluation of biodiversity conservation under different management regimes in the
tropical forests of Nagarahole National Park, Karnataka, India.
The three management and access regimes identified to test these hypotheses are
briefly described below:
1. Highly protected area (HPA): The Hatghat RF (112.23 km2) falls under this category. This area was declared a multiple-use RF in 1865 (Appayya 2001).
Thereafter, it has been a part of a Game Sanctuary declared in 1955 and a
National Park in 1974. This category was the most strictly protected area both de
facto and legally. It has a history of legal wildlife protection since 1955 and
effective on-ground law enforcement since 1974.
2. Medium protected area (MPA): The Arkeri RF and Kachuvanahalli SF together
(100.84 km2) come under this category. It also had similar history and legal status as Hatghat, but because of its fragmented configuration, greater human access
and the lack of focus in wildlife management, it received on-ground protection
effectively only from the mid-1990s, when the administratively unified wildlife
division was formed. So, its history of wildlife protection is more recent, and its
configuration renders the law enforcement difficult.
3. Least protected area (LPA): The Mavukal RF (33.09 km2), Devmachi RF
(23.39 km2) and Anechowkur RF (36.76 km2) are covered by this category.
Although these areas were declared RFs in 1891, they have been under a
multiple-use management regime since then and were never included in the
Game Sanctuary notification of 1955 or the National Park notification in 1974.
20
The right to forest use was available to some local residents, and the forests were
managed for timber yield and revenue, rather than conservation.
These three distinct management regimes that prevail within an ecologically
similar landscape area (Fig. 2.2) enabled us to spatially demarcate the three management regimes within it and to compare the impacts of human pressures and
protection regimes on various forms of biodiversity. They were ecologically comparable in terms of local climate, soils, topography, forest vegetation type, flora and
vertebrate fauna, thus providing a suitable study landscape for assessing human
impacts on biodiversity (Fig. 2.2).
2.2
2.2.1
Research Hypotheses and Objectives

Objectives
Given the above context, the study aimed to examine human impacts on different
forms of biodiversity under different levels of access, strictness of protection and
resource extraction regimes that prevailed in a specific conservation landscape. The
overall goal was to assess the status of biodiversity in terms of relative abundance
and richness patterns for selected taxonomic groups, such as vegetation, birds and
large mammals as well as to measure human impacts, such as hunting, biomass collection, grazing, forest fires and related parameters on biodiversity metrics. A key
design feature of these measurements was based on rigorous quantitative field surveys using state of the art biological sampling methods (see Chap. 3). To develop
a set of monitoring protocols for the general use by wildlife managers and to enable
their integration into an adaptive management framework was also a related objective of the study.
Specific objectives of the study were:
1. To estimate richness, diversity and abundance of plant species within select
groups and to characterise vegetation community composition
2. To estimate population densities of select bird species and foraging guilds as
well as to estimate bird species richness
3. To estimate population densities of large mammal species
4. To measure and characterise levels of human access and resulting impacts and
disturbances such as hunting, livestock grazing, fires and various forms of forest
biomass removal
5. To compare and contrast the status of different forms of biodiversity in three
management settings and examine its conservation and management
implications
2.2 Research Hypotheses and Objectives
2.2.2
21
Target Biodiversity Components
Rather than assessing the entire spectrum of biodiversity at risk, we focused on the
following clearly discriminated categories of representations of biodiversity to
investigate an influence of management and disturbance regimes on the species
richness diversity and abundance.
Plants (Scientific Names of Plants Follow Gamble 1935) Plant species were
classified into three categoriestrees (plants with > 30 cm girth at breast height),
shrubs (plants with > 10 cm and < 30 cm girth at ground height) and herbs (plants
with < 10 cm girth at ground height).
Birds (Scientific Names Follow Rasmussen and Anderton 2005) Bird species
have different niche and varying habitat requirements, which in turn determine the
distribution pattern and survival of that particular species or guild. The birds can be
grouped on the basis of habitat, like forest birds, urban landscape birds, open-forest
birds, etc. (Miller and Cale 2000). The type of vegetation determines the food availability, which is, in turn, altered by local disturbance levels, thus affecting the bird
species composition (Thiollay 1994). Depending on their body size and food availability, various bird species experience different effects of fragmentation and degradation of habitats (Gaston and Blackburn 1995; Greenwood et al. 1996). Hence, in
addition to examining abundance of birds for which we had sufficient sample sizes,
we chose food guild assemblage for studying the impact of human pressures, as the
human pressures at local level could potentially alter the food resources for birds.
We categorised the species of birds into 19 guilds based on food habits as reported
by Grimmett et al. (1999), Kazmierczak and Perlo (2000) and Raman (2003). These
guilds were aquatic, frugivorous, frugi-granivorous, frugi-insectivorous, fruginectivorous, frugi-omnivorous, gallinaceous, granivorous, grani-insectivorous,
insectivorous, insecti-granivorous, insecti-omnivorous, insecti-raptor, nectivorous,
necti-frugivorous, necti-insectivorous, omnivorous, raptor and scavenger. For
example, gallinaceous birds included Indian peafowl Pavo cristatus; grey jungle
fowl Gallus sonneratii and spur fowl Galloperdix lunulata.
Large mammals (Scientific Names Follow Wilson and Reeder 2005) Terrestrial
mammals included elephant Elephas maximus, gaur Bos frontalis, sambar Rusa
unicolor, chital Axis axis, wild pig Sus scrofa, mouse deer Moschiola indica, muntjac Muntiacus muntjak and arboreal mammals included bonnet monkey Macaca
radiata, Hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus and Malabar giant squirrel Ratufa
indica. Because of expected lower sample sizes, carnivores were excluded.
Chapter 3
Survey Design, Field and Analytical Methods
3.1
The Overall Study Design
Plants, birds and large herbivorous mammals were the key biodiversity components
selected for the investigations. These major biodiversity elements were indicators of
ongoing ecological changes in the study area. Vegetation, being the primary producers in the ecosystem, is the cardinal component of the habitat and is the key determinant of other biodiversity components including birds and mammals (Kremen
2005; Wilson et al. 2007).
The key objective of the study was to measure impacts of human pressures on the
structure and composition of vegetation, abundance and richness of birds and abundance of large mammals. As we hypothesised, human pressures in a region generally have direct effects on these biodiversity components. Hence, we chose one
single survey design that would enable measuring both human disturbances and
varied biodiversity parameters at the same locations from a set of field surveys, for
an objective assessment.
We first assessed and made use of available digitised maps of the Nagarahole
region, before conducting additional field surveys to incorporate information not
available in these maps using a GPS (Garmin 12 XL). We then prepared detailed
maps for the study area showing clearly the different management and access
regimes we were interested in comparing for generating a single survey design.
Since 1986, scientists from the Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS) have been
conducting long-term monitoring studies in the National Park assessing large mammalian densities using purposively placed line transects laid in proportion to the
different habitat types available. In 2003, after carefully examining the existing
stratified random survey design and the results and experiences gained from the new
systematic sampling survey design used in three sites in Maharashtra (Karanth and
Kumar 2005), the CWS scientists designed a new transect survey system for sampling animal populations in Nagarahole National Park (Karanth et al. 2008). Under
this transect system, line segments of a predetermined length are placed
23
24
3 Survey Design, Field and Analytical Methods
systematically across the entire survey area, with a random start point (Buckland
et al. 2004), using the automated survey design feature in DISTANCE software
(Thomas et al. 2010). The line segment samplers were then transformed to a square
geometry to improve field logistic efficiency and to reduce duplication of efforts
(Karanth and Kumar 2005; Karanth et al. 2008). We chose this survey design system as a basis for designing survey protocols for sampling target biodiversity components (vegetation, birds and mammals) and human disturbance in the study area.
A systematic sampling design with a random start was used in the program
DISTANCE (Thomas et al. 2010) to generate samplers covering the entire study
area. To maintain uniformity with the transect survey system followed in the rest of
Nagarahole National Park, we retained a transect length of 3.2 km for sampling in
the study area. We marked a new set of transects in Mavukal and Devmachi region
(LPA) and added several new transects in MPA and HPA regions to line transects
already designed by CWS in Nagarahole National Park, using the same spacing
between transects. Each square sampler was placed at a distance of 3 km from the
adjoining one. The coordinates of the corners of the squares geo-referenced, and the
points were located on ground using Garmin 12 XL GPS. Each arm of the line was
measured and marked at every hundred metres using red paint and metal plates.
In all, we marked 22 transect lines in the entire study area. HPA and MPA management regime had eight transects, and LPA management regime had six transects.
Figure 3.1 shows the schematic map of the transect survey design used to measure
different components of biodiversity. Since, the areas under the three regimes being
compared were found to be similar in terms of key habitat factors (vegetation type,
rainfall and topography) as described in Chap. 2, this transect system ensured that
all the different biodiversity parameters measured along these transects were amenable for comparisons across the study area as well as among the three management
regimes.
The three management regimes and consequently the three human disturbance
levels expected in the study area are likely to have variable impacts on different
biodiversity components both in respect of species composition/species richness
and species abundance. Some species of plants, birds and mammals were chosen as
the target biodiversity components for more detailed investigation of the effects of
management regimes/human disturbances.
In view of the fact that diverse taxonomic groups as well as human impacts were
to be measured, we decided to rely on non-invasive sampling methods that did not
involve physical capture or tagging of individuals. We also did not employ noninvasive field survey methods that involved expensive equipment or advanced laboratories, such as photographic sampling (Karanth and Nichols 1998) or genetic
sampling (Mondol et al. 2009). Our primary method of field surveys revolved
around the use of a system of line transects (Buckland et al. 2001, 2004; Williams
et al. 2002) that systematically covered all three areas under different management
or human access regimes. These transect-based field surveys were chosen to measure the following parameters:
3.1 The Overall Study Design
25
Fig. 3.1 Map showing a system of 22 transects that systematically covered the three management
regimes prevalent within the study area. Inset map shows the location of study area in India
26
1. Species composition, diversity and richness of different biodiversity

components
2. Abundance or densities of select individual species and guilds or categories of
plants, birds and mammals
The same set of line transects were used to measure the two explanatory variables, which were hypothesised to influence both animal abundance and species
compositionHuman Disturbance Index (HDI), an anthropogenic variable summarising the human impacts, which is a result of a particular management or access
regime prevailing over the area, as well as Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI), an ecological variable that is a good surrogate of forest vegetation type and
climate.
3.2
Assessment of the Habitat Similarity
To assess similarity in the ecological habitat across the three management regimes,
we relied on remotely sensed vegetation indices, which make use of reflectance
bands sensitive to chlorophyll absorption and cell wall reflectance. These indices
are calculated as ratios of individual bands or of band sums or differences to facilitate recognition of and variation within types and densities of growing forests, plantations and crops. The most commonly used index is the NDVI, which is considered
as a good surrogate for the measure of vegetation cover type and green biomass
(Bawa et al. 2002; Krishnaswamy et al. 2009).
NDVI typically varies between 1 and +1, and values of NDVI for forest vegetation generally range from 0.1 to 0.7, with values > 0.5 indicating dense vegetation
(Wang et al. 2001; Krishnaswamy et al. 2009). NDVI is derived using the following
algorithm:
NDVI C2 C1 / C2 C1
(3.1)
where C2 and C1 are the near-infrared and visible red channels.

We used NDVI values to ascertain uniformity in vegetation type in the study
region. We used LISS IV data (taken on 30-11-2005) for computing NDVI values
for all 22 line transects in the study region and computed average NDVI values for
each of the three management regimes. For each transect, NDVI values for the four
points on each arm of transect were extracted, and the mean NDVI of the 16 points
was computed to reflect the vegetation status.
We also used the NDVI value computed for each of the 22 line transects as an
ecological variable, to independently assess its influence on both species richness
and abundance of target biodiversity components.
3.3
Field Survey Methods
3.3
3.3.1
27

Overall Approach to Field Surveys
Species richness and species abundance was measured for each of the following
three biodiversity components: plants, birds and mammals. Plants were classified
into the three categories based on girth, bird abundance was measured for 19 foraging guilds, and mammals were categorised as terrestrial or arboreal. Based on principles of replication, randomisation and stratification, we used a single overarching
survey design to quantify abundance of plants, birds, mammals and human impacts/
disturbance.
We used vegetation survey plots placed along transects to measure plant diversity
and abundance, point-transect surveys for bird richness and abundance and linetransect surveys for measuring abundance of herbivorous mammals. Various survey
design aspects, basis of their choices as well as the data collection and analysis
protocols followed for each of the biodiversity components targeted in the study are
described below.
3.3.2
Plants
Vegetation sampling was carried out on 22 permanent line transects, used for sampling mammals, birds and human disturbance, in order to capture subtle vegetation
structure and compositional changes at the level of each sampling site (transect).
The vegetation structure and composition is prime determinant of variations in richness and abundance of other biodiversity forms. On every transect line at an interval
of 200 m distance, 25 4 m rectangular plots were laid perpendicular to the line on
either side making it a rectangular plot of 50 4 m for sampling plants with >30 cm
girth at breast height (GBH), referred as trees. We placed a 4 4 m plot at either end
of this primary plot to record plants with <30 cm GBH and >10 cm girth at ground
height (GGH), referred as shrubs. For measuring plants with <10 cm at GGH,
referred as herbs, two 1 1 m plots were nested at the diagonal end of each secondary plot (4 4 m). Figure 3.2 shows the schematic diagram of survey design used for
measuring vegetation structure, composition and abundance of plants in the three
management regimes. Vegetation sampling surveys were carried out during March
to May 2005.
Sampling was done at 337 points in all 22 line transects for trees, covering an
area of 6.74 ha. All the trees measuring >30 cm of GBH were identified to species
level, their height was measured using Ravi multimeter, and GBH was recorded at
1.3 m from ground using a measuring tape. The tree canopy density was measured
using convex densitometer at three points in each of the rectangular plot, one point
was placed in the middle of the rectangular plot exactly on the transect line and two
points on either side at the end of the rectangular plot. At each point, the total grids
28
Fig. 3.2 A schematic diagram of vegetation sampling plots used for measuring the plant diversity
component across the three management regimes in the study area
3.3
29
on the convex mirror occupied were counted on all four directions, and an average
was computed as a canopy density.
Nested within the tree plots, at opposite ends of the rectangular tree plot, two
plots of 4 4 m size were laid for shrub sampling. All the individual shrub species
were identified, GGH was measured using callipers, and each individual species
height was measured using marked measuring rod. The shrub cover % was assessed
qualitatively. In all, sampling was done at 674 plots covering an area of 1.078 ha.
For sampling herbs, two plots (1 1 m) were placed at the diagonally opposite
ends nested within the shrub plots. In all, herbs were sampled at 1348 plots covering
an area of 1348 m2. All herbs were identified to the species level, with the help of
local tribes and floristic experts. Ocular assessment of the percentage grass cover,
presence of exposed soil, litter and dead wood was made.
Taxonomic identification of all plant specimens encountered in vegetation survey plots was ascertained by (a) tallying local vernacular names with scientific
names, (b) using floral guides and (c) consulting floristic experts from local
universities.
3.3.3
Bird Species and Guilds (Non-gallinaceous)
Transect counts, point counts, and territory mapping are some of the standard techniques predominantly used for bird density estimates (Bibby et al. 1992; Lloyd et al.
2000). In closed forest habitats, point counts are more preferred over line transect
(Lloyd et al. 2000). It is mainly because the observer has more chance to cover long
distances and observe birds while standing at one place, rather than walking through
the habitat. We also conducted field trials to check the suitability of line transects
and point transects. Based on the field trials, we chose point-transect (variable circular plot) method for sampling. Standard point-transect protocol as described in
Buckland et al. (2001) was used for sampling the data. Permanently marked line
transects were used as base for choosing points, and sampling was done at every
200 m distance. Point counts were centred on rectangular plots of vegetation surveyed for trees. There were 16 points on a 3.2 km length of transect (Fig. 3.3 shows
the schematic diagram of the survey design for birds).
We sampled all 22 transects four times, and the entire sampling was completed
within one season (December 2004 to January 2005). On each occasion, all the 22
lines were covered once, before taking up the second round of sampling. We trained
23 qualified bird-watchers in field protocols including using laser rangefinders.
Only trained survey personnel were used to collect point-transect data. The field
sampling was carried out from 06:15 to 09:30 h, and each point transect was covered four times. At each sampling point, sampling was done for 5 min, without any
wait period. In all, the surveys were done at 1324 points, using 88 man-days of
fieldwork.
All visually detected birds were recorded after ascertaining their species identity.
Birds whose calls were only heard were excluded from bird-count data. Distance
30
Fig. 3.3 A schematic diagram of survey design used for measuring bird biodiversity component
across the three management regimes in the study area
3.3
31
was measured using the laser rangefinder or assessed visually at very close quarters
to the cluster centre if it was a flock of birds. Bird species were identified using
binoculars. Birds flying far too high (raptors, swifts and swallows) or fly-by birds
were not included in the sampling. We excluded predominantly ground-foraging
gallinaceous birds from the point-transect data.
The bird-count data was then pooled across species to estimate an abundance of
guilds defined as a priori. The species-specific detections also formed the basis for
constructing detection history matrices for estimating species richness of birds.
3.3.4
Mammals and Gallinaceous Birds
We used standard line-transect method (Buckland et al. 2001; Karanth et al. 2002b)
for estimating densities of large herbivores (including both terrestrial and arboreal)
and predominantly ground-foraging gallinaceous birds. Line-transect sampling, for
mammals and gallinaceous birds, was conducted during the months April 2004 to
May 2004. Figure 3.4 shows the schematic diagram of line-transect survey design
used in this study.
Field protocols prescribed by Karanth et al. (2002a, b) were followed for linetransect surveys of large mammals. To reduce footfall noise and to improve detection efficiency, only two trained volunteers walked on each transect line to collect
the data once in the morning from 06:15 to 08:15 h and once in the evening from
15:45 to 18:00 h. All the large herbivores (12 species including arboreal mammals)
sighted were recorded; the sighting angle and the radial distance to an individual or
to the centre of the cluster were recorded. The animals present within a radius of
30 m were considered as a cluster (Karanth et al. 2002b). At each detection event,
species, size of the animal cluster, sighting angle with reference to the line transect
walked and the sighting distance from the observer to the individual animal or to the
group centre were measured using the laser rangefinder. The sighting angles were
measured using liquid filled compass. The sighting angle and the sighting distance
were used subsequently to calculate the perpendicular distance of the animal location site on the line transect.
Each of the 22 line transects was walked six times covering a total length of
392.5 km. Data from the temporal replicates were pooled and treated as a single
sample. The encounter data was used to calculate the densities, by multiplying cluster density with cluster size (Karanth et al. 2002b).
3.3.5
Human Disturbances and Impacts
One of the major constraints in measuring the human-induced disturbances is a lack

of inexpensive (without involving complex technology), single standard method to
capture all the disturbances comprehensively in an area. We measured human
32
Fig. 3.4 A schematic diagram of the line-transect survey design used to measure the abundance of
terrestrial mammals, arboreal mammals and gallinaceous birds across the three management
regimes in the study area
3.4 Analytical Methods
33
disturbance all along the transect lines on which mammalian, bird and vegetation
sampling was carried out to correlate the human disturbance with changes in vegetation structure and composition, bird species richness and abundance, and mammalian abundance.
Observations on the local communities dependency on the forest for their livelihood were also taken into account, and 13 various forms of human disturbance and
their associated signs were identified, which could be readily counted or their
presence could be recorded. Two observers walked each line transect once and
recorded signs of human activities, such as cut stems, cut bamboo, lopped trees,
logged trees, notches cut on trees, presence of cattle dung or tracks and poaching
signs approximately within 30 m distance visible on either side of the line transect. Given the deciduous nature of the study area with relatively open undergrowth
and an average strip width of 50 m of visibility, it was reasonable to expect nearcertain detection of all human activity signs within 30 m distance from the transect
line. Also, because we were primarily interested in assessing overall human disturbance prevalent in the study area, both old and new signs of human activities were
recorded. Tally counts of these signs were made for each 100 m segment of the
transect line to record the extent of human disturbance (Fig. 3.5). The presence or
absence of other signs, such as fire, dead wood clearance, weed infestation and
exposed soil, was also recorded in each 100 m segment. The degree of weed infestation, extent of exposed soil and presence of dead and old growth trees were also
recorded. These human impact surveys were carried out in May 2005.
3.4
3.4.1
Analytical Methods
Assessing Species Richness
Species richness is the number of species present in a given habitat and is the simplest form of describing ecological community diversity (Magurran 1988). The species richness estimates have similar problems of detection and spatial sampling
(Yoccoz et al. 2001). For example, detection probabilities of birds are different
across species (Burnham and Overton 1979). Various methods proposed to estimate
species richness are based on species detection probability which itself is based on
the number of individuals present in the region and how hard it is to detect an individual. Various capturerecapture models are available based on the detection probability incorporating heterogeneity and detectability (Otis et al. 1978). In such
analyses, detection of each species is analogous to the detection of an individual in
a capture study of population abundance. We used capturerecapture models to estimate bird species richness by using species detection data that we had already
collected during bird transect counts. However, the vegetation survey plots are relatively small and of fixed area, so we used conventional approaches to estimate
34
Fig. 3.5 A schematic diagram of the survey design used to assess the extent and magnitude of
human disturbances across the three management regimes in the study area
35
species richness of plants. The analytical method followed for estimating species
richness in each target biodiversity component is described below.
3.4.1.1
Assessment of Species Richness in Plants
Species richness and evenness index was computed using the program EstimateS
(Colwell 2009) for each category of plants surveyed, like trees, shrubs and herbs.
Basic statistics like the number of species and diversity indices such as Shannon
Wiener index, Simpson index, Fishers alpha index, etc. were estimated at each
transect level and also across management regimes using the program EstimateS
(version 7.0) software (Colwell 2009). Diversity indices are single statistic derived
from the combination of summary of species richness and evenness. There are different ways in which the indices, like ShannonWiener index, Simpson index and
Fishers alpha index, are computed (Magurran 2004). These indices are considered
indication of diversity. We computed all these indices using EstimateS statistical
software (Colwell 2009). The three indices represent key aspects that include species rarity, species evenness and species diversity.
ShannonWiener index is a measure of species diversity, which is represented by
the stability of the habitat. ShannonWiener index is biased towards rare species.
Simpsons Diversity Index is also called species diversity index. Simpsons Diversity
Index is calculated on the basis of number of species present as well as relative
abundance of species. There is more emphasis on evenness. Fishers alpha index is
calculated on the basis of assumption that abundance of species follows log series
distribution.
3.4.1.2
Assessment of Species Richness in Birds
Bird species richness at the transect level and also at each management regime level
was estimated using the program SPECRICH (Hines 1996) that specifically incorporates detection probability into species richness estimates (expected number of
species present). This is in direct contrast to the number of plant species counted
within relatively small fixed area vegetation survey plots, where there is no uncertainty in the counting and identification of plant species encountered within the
survey plots. The number of species detected in each point count within a transect
formed the basis for computing transect-level species richness, while cumulative
number of species detected at each transect level formed the basis for computing
species richness at each management regime level. The program SPECRICH uses
frequencies and the total number of species detected during field surveys. It is based
on modified heterogeneity Mh model, which accounts for variable capture probabilities of bird species, but there is no impact of time variation and trap response
(Boulinier et al. 1998; Williams et al. 2002).
36
3.4.1.3
Assessment of Species Richness in Mammals
Only 11 species of herbivorous mammals (that included both terrestrial and arboreal) were encountered during transect surveys, and hence, we did not carry out any
detailed assessment of species richness for mammals.
3.4.2
Assessing Species Abundance
Forest structure is its diversity depending on the components (Zenner and Hibbs
2000). The plant community determines the ecosystem processes (Loreau et al.
2003; Kremen 2005), and the structural characteristics provide niche for wildlife
(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961). Hence, estimating and understanding forest
structural variables across management regimes in the study region are one of the
key objectives of the study. The following methods were used for estimating an
abundance of biodiversity components.
3.4.2.1
Assessment of Species Abundance in Plants: Stand Density

and Basal Area
All plants encountered in vegetation sampling plots were compiled, and the number
of plants in each unit area (ha) was computed in MS EXCEL. The density of plants
encountered was computed for each of the three categories of plants (trees, shrubs
and herbs) separately; stand density (number of trees per ha), stem density (number
of shrubs per ha) and herb density (number of herbs per ha) were compiled for comparison across each management category. We also computed average tree height,
overstorey canopy density, average shrub height, understorey shrub cover density,
percent grass, percent leaf litter cover and percent exposed soil using the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet functions.
Basal area (BA) per ha was computed for trees and shrubs to assess structural
variability whether the site had few old trees with large basal area or young forest
with many trees. BA was calculated using the standard formula, BA = r2. BA of
individual plants was aggregated to compute BA per ha. BA of plants grouped based
on girth class was compared across each management regime to assess vegetation
structure both at overstorey and understorey levels.
Along with herb density, percentage exposed soil, litter percent and percentage
grass cover to assess crude estimate of biomass turnover and indirect evidence of
fire in the region were also assessed. The absence of litter is indicative of both high
incidences of fire as well as removal for manure by local residents. Grasses represent the first stage in succession, which is indication of the presence of biotic pressures in the region. Percentage grass cover was computed as a surrogate of biotic
pressure.
3.4.2.2
37
Assessment of Species Abundance in Birds: Line-Transect

and Point-Transect Surveys
We used the program DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2010) for calculating density
estimates. The analytic approach to estimate density for forest birds using the point
transect is similar to the one used in line-transect sampling. In point transect, the
observer records radial distance from the point to the object. Point transect also follows other basic assumptions of line transects: Birds were detected with certainty.
There was no movement of birds before they were detected, and the location of the
bird was also identified. If it is in a group, the centre of the cluster was identified,
and the distance from the observer was measured accurately.
Only birds with more than 60 sightings were considered for density estimates of
an individual species. Analytical protocols followed were as given by Buckland
et al. (2001). All species detected (irrespective of sample sizes achieved) were
grouped into 19 foraging guilds based on food habits reported in Grimmett et al.
(1999), and density estimates were computed for those guilds which met sample
size criterion (>60 sightings).
Exploratory analysis was carried out in DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2010) to
identify problems in datasets, such as evasive movement of birds or guilds, roundingoff errors, the presence of spike in data, etc. as well as to decide truncation levels to
minimise the effect of outliers on detection function (Buckland et al. 2001). All the
three models with half normal, uniform and hazard rate with cosine functions were
tested to examine the data fit. The model with lowest AIC value, as well as based on
goodness-of-fit (GOF) statistics, was chosen for computing density estimates
(Karanth et al. 2002b). Density estimates at individual transect level or at each management regime could not be computed for bird species, which had zero or a few
sightings (<40).
Global detection function for each guild of birds was used to compute probability of detection (p) and encounter rate (n/L). We computed corrected encounter
rates, by multiplying encounter rate with p. The corrected encounter rate for individual transect is used as surrogate for abundance for that particular transect. We
also computed density estimates for bird food guilds across transects and also across
three management regimes.
We chose three habitat specialist species to examine the impact of human disturbances on their abundances: hill myna Gracula indica, an inhabitant of dense forests, feeding mainly on fruits, insects and grains; jungle babbler Turdoides striatus,
a forest-edge species feeding mainly on insects, grains, nectar and berries; and redvented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer, an omnivorous bird of open forests, plains and
cultivation lands, feeding mainly on berries, grains, leaves and insects.
38
3.4.2.3
Assessment of Species Abundance in Mammals and Gallinaceous

Birds: Line-Transect Surveys
The program DISTANCE 6.0 was used to estimate abundance of large mammals
and gallinaceous birds. The analytical protocols followed Buckland et al. (2001)
and Karanth et al. (2002a, b). As the sample sizes were too low for estimating animal density at individual transect level and the variance associated with detection
probability was too high, all animal detections were pooled for terrestrial herbivores
and arboreal mammals to estimate encounter rates at transect level and densities at
this group level. Data was truncated to eliminate outlier observations and to improve
subsequent model fit as suggested by Buckland et al. (2001). The appropriate detection model best suited for each species, as well as for terrestrial and arboreal groups,
was selected on the basis of AIC values and GOF tests generated by the program
DISTANCE. Differences in the encounter rates or abundances among transect lines
and management or access regimes were investigated by examining scatter plots
and box-and-whisker plots. The density estimates were compared across the three
different management and access regimes to draw inferences.
Since the sample sizes of each species of mammals found to be too low at transect level or zero sightings on few transects, we chose to study impact of human
pressures on the two groups of mammals, rather than any one species in particular,
i.e. terrestrial mammals that included elephant, gaur, sambar, wild pig, chital and
muntjac and arboreal mammals that included bonnet monkey, Hanuman langur and
Malabar giant squirrel. All the sighting encounters were pooled to compute terrestrial and arboreal mammalian densities across transects and across management
regimes.
Exploratory analysis was carried out to identify evasive movements, outliers and
spikes close to transect line (Buckland et al. 2001). Global detection function was
used to compute the encounter rate and probability of detection p at each transect.
We computed corrected encounter rates for each species at each transect by multiplying encounter rate with p. We used corrected encounter rates as a substitute for
density estimates, wherever direct computation of animal densities was not possible
due to sample size constraints. The data filters and model definition components
available in the DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2010) were used for detailed analysis. For objectively selecting the models best suited for each species, AIC values
and GOF tests generated by the program DISTANCE 6.0 were used. Truncation was
done before model selection. The fitness of detection function close to line was
judged based on GOF test results. The model with lowest AIC values and best fit
was selected. Sighting encounter rate (n/L), average probability of detection (p),
cluster density (Ds), estimated cluster size E (s) and estimated animal density (D)
were computed for each transect. Two common species, chital and Malabar giant
squirrel, had >60 sightings. Hence, density estimates were computed separately for
these two species. Detections of three species of gallinaceous birds, Indian peafowl,
spur fowl and jungle fowl were grouped together (due to sample size constraints) to
compute densities across line transect and the three management regimes.
3.4.3
39
Assessing Human Impacts and Disturbance
The frequency of counts of various human activity signs was computed separately
to calculate human disturbance sign encounter rate per kilometre walked. The overall Human Disturbance Index (HDI) for each transect is an aggregate count index of
all disturbance or impact signs observed that represented the gradient of human
disturbance regime across the study area.
We categorised signs of all human activities encountered into two distinct
groups of quantitative signs and qualitative signs. Quantifiable human disturbance
signs (such as cut stems, cut bamboo, lopped trees, logged trees, tree notches, cattle
dung, poaching signs) were aggregated, and the average number of signs encountered per unit km of walk effort was computed to obtain Human Disturbance Count
Index (HDCI). Similarly qualitatively assessed human disturbance signs (presence
absence of fire, dead wood presence, weed infestation and exposed soil) were combined to obtain a frequency-based Human Disturbance Detection Index (HDDI).
The overall HDI was the sum of HDCI and HDDI.
3.4.4
Comparisons of Attributes Across Management

and Access Regimes
The comparison of structure, composition and abundance of species under each of

the above biodiversity component was carried out across the three management
regimes using box-and-whisker plots. An effect of HDI on the structure, composition and abundance of species after accounting for variations in NDVI under each
biodiversity component was examined through scatter plots, simple linear regression and partial Mantel tests.
3.4.4.1
Box-and-Whisker Plots
Box-and-whisker plots are perhaps the simplest and among the best methods for
representing group of data (in this case, densities or richness in each management
category). These plots are also the most appropriate to assess an impact of management regimes. The smallest sample is represented as a lower quartile (Q1), and the
largest observation is represented as an upper quartile (Q3), while the central line in
the box represents the median. The box plots also indicate the outliers. The box
plots are the best way to represent differences between populations without underlying any statistical assumptions and hence fall under the family of non-parametric
tests. If the median value of any box does not overlap with other boxes, this indicates that particular group is significantly different. Please note that these plots not
only give an information on how the central tendency (median) among categories is
being compared but also the dispersion of the data about the median in each
40
category, thus enabling the comparisons of differences in median taking into account
the variability within each category. As observational ecological data are, often, not
of similar size when a category, such as management regime, is imposed on the
study area and there are other sources of variability within each category, box plots
are the most appropriate graphical technique to use.
We used box-and-whisker plots to compare estimates of species richness and
species abundance of different biodiversity components across three management
regimes. Box plots are drawn using the sampled data from each management
regime. From each sample data, 2575 quartiles are used in drawing the box, the
median is shown as thick line in the box, and the whiskers indicate 10th and 90th
percentiles. Outliers are shown as dots above the whiskers.
3.4.4.2
Scatter Plots and Regressions
We assumed that the variability in biodiversity across the landscape is likely to be

influenced by the variability in the forest vegetation (an ecological variable) and
disturbance (an artefact of management regime). NDVI is a good surrogate for
quantifying forest vegetation variability across a large landscape (Krishnaswamy
et al. 2009). We used scatter plots with simple linear regression to find out a relationship between vegetation index (NDVI) and estimates of species richness and
abundance of various biodiversity components (plants, birds and mammals). We
also used scatter plots with simple linear fits to explore the relationship between
Human Disturbance Index (HDI) and estimates of species richness and abundance
of various biodiversity components. These regression plots are highly informative
and do not involve the use of complex mathematics or statistics for interpretations
and are methods that could be easily replicated by park managers.
We examined the values of coefficient of determination (r2) at 85 % significance
level (p < 0.15) to evaluate the goodness of fit to the linear regression data (Zar
1996).
3.4.4.3
Partial Mantel Tests
The variability in biodiversity across the landscape (without considering artificial

boundaries of management regimes) will be influenced by both forest vegetation
and human disturbance. In order to assess the independent role of disturbance on
biodiversity, it is essential to first account for the influence of forest vegetation type.
Furthermore, spatial autocorrelation in variables across the landscape is likely to be
there, the data points cannot be considered independent, and therefore, the use of
ordinary multiple regressions is inappropriate in this study. We, therefore, adopted
the partial Mantels correlation as an appropriate technique that uses a nonparametric approach to assess p-values.
The basic question answered by the Mantels test is: Is the variability in biodiversity explained by variability in HDI after accounting for the influence of NDVI? A
41
dissimilarity matrix using all transects is generated for each of the independent
covariates, NDVI and HDI.
We used partial Mantel tests to examine if dissimilarity in species composition
(based on BrayCurtis compositional distances), richness or abundance across transects can be explained by dissimilarity in covariates such as disturbance (HDI) and
NDVI. Simple Mantel tests allow examining the effect of only one explanatory variable at a time on a given response variable. Since we were primarily interested in
investigating the influence of human disturbance (often a consequence of a particular type of management regime) on a given response variable (e.g. abundance of a
species or a guild) after accounting for the influence of habitat type or vegetation
cover (e.g. NDVI), we used partial Mantel tests (Mantel 1967), which is an extension of Mantel test, to assess the influence of multiple predictor variables (Burgman
1987; Legendre and Fortin 1989; Goslee and Urban 2007).
Chapter 4
Results and Findings
4.1
Habitat Similarity
The effects of environmental variables (measured by NDVI) and management variables (measured by human disturbance levels across management regimes) on community composition, species richness and species abundances of the targeted
biodiversity components (plants, birds and mammals) are presented in this chapter.
Human impacts appear to be key drivers of biodiversity loss, triggering cascading
effects on the structure and function of individual constituents of biological communities. These results highlight biodiversity responses to human pressures and
management interventions meant to address them.
4.1.1
Assessments of Habitat Similarity
The results of comparison of NDVI values across management regimes and across
individual transects to ascertain the similarity in the habitat characteristics across
sampling units are described first. NDVI is a good surrogate for the forest vegetation
type that broadly captures the ecological variability in the habitat that ultimately
influences species composition and abundance of plants and animals (Krishnaswamy
et al. 2009). The NDVI values measured from remotely sensed data (Table 4.1)
across the study region ranged from 0.28 (CV 0.67) to 0.43 (CV 0.33). Although the
mean NDVI value was similar across the three management regimes, there is some
variability in NDVI values throughout the study region, suggesting inherent ecological heterogeneity and diversity.
We used KruskalWallis test to check whether the difference in NDVI values
among the three management units was significant or not. For KruskalWallis test
H value is 2.14 (p = 0.343; df = 2). It is less than the critical value of 3.44, which
suggests that the difference is insignificant. Similarly, CV (NDVI) H value is 2.14
43
4 Results and Findings
44
Table 4.1 Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values along with their associated
coefficient of variation (CV) across the three management regimes in the study area
Management regime
HPA
MPA
LPA
Transect no.
HPA-1
HPA-2
HPA-3
HPA-4
HPA-5
HPA-6
HPA-7
HPA-8
Average
MPA-1
MPA-2
MPA-3
MPA-4
MPA-5
MPA-6
MPA-7
MPA-8
Average
LPA-1
LPA-2
LPA-3
LPA-4
LPA-5
LPA-6
Average
NDVI
0.3588299
0.3762826
0.3815463
0.400029
0.4304322
0.3048062
0.3948093
0.2794117
0.3657684
0.3373095
0.3665041
0.3768528
0.3268131
0.4156395
0.3608049
0.3605179
0.3818226
0.36578305
0.3995558
0.3217281
0.4221955
0.3788077
0.4240506
0.387577
0.388985783
CV (NDVI)
0.4362513
0.4879116
0.5197317
0.3869769
0.3304955
0.636441
0.5047643
0.6730418
0.496951763
0.4782238
0.466676
0.3815835
0.5537828
0.2273674
0.5304809
0.4055103
0.5547906
0.449801913
0.2429183
0.5769521
0.3095995
0.3844854
0.3515458
0.4986011
0.394017033
HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area
NDVI and CV NDVI of study region

NDVI/CV NDVI Values
0.6
0.5
0.4
NDVI
0.3
CV NDVI
0.2
0.1
0
HPA
MPA
LPA
Management regimes
Fig. 4.1 Similarity in values of Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and their associated coefficient of variation (CV) across the three management regimes in the study area
4.2 Assessments of Status of Biodiversity Components
45
(p = 0.343, df = 2), which is less than the critical value. These results (Fig. 4.1) suggest that both the NDVI and its variability among three management regimes are not
significantly different and that the forest vegetation type in all the three regimes is
relatively homogenous and is likely to be ecologically similar.
4.2
4.2.1
Assessments of Status of Biodiversity Components

Plant Species Richness
A total of 249 plant species belonging to 61 families were recorded during vegetation surveys of the plots (see Appendix I). Taxonomic identification of 45 plant
species could not be made although distinct vernacular (Kannada) names existed for
these unidentified species. The number of plant species estimated in each transect
varied from four to 63 for trees, 13 to103 for shrubs and 53 to122 for herbs.
The number of plant species observed, estimated numbers of species and diversity indices of plants for all the three categories (trees, shrubs and herbs) in each of
the areas under the three management regimes estimated are presented in Table 4.2
((i), (ii) and (iii)).
4.2.2
Bird Species Richness
Point-transect counts of birds yielded 141 species of birds (see Appendix II), and
the number of bird species estimated using SPECRICH was 189 species, after correcting for imperfect detections. The number of bird species observed from point
transects ranged from 37 to 63, while these estimates for number of species after
accounting for imperfect detections (see Chap. 3 for methodological details) varied
between 40 and 116 species. As anticipated, the study clearly emphasised the need
to incorporate detectability parameter while estimating bird species richness. Details
of the estimates of bird species richness within each of the three management
regimes are provided in Table 4.3.
4.2.3
Mammal Species Richness
In line-transect surveys for mammals, 11 species were detected from a sampling effort
of 392.5 km in the overall study area. The number of sightings of mammals along each
transect line, under each of the three management regimes, is given in Table 4.4. The
small number of species observed was not amenable for computing more complex species richness estimates for mammals accounting for imperfect detections.
46
Table 4.2 Estimates of species richness and diversity indices of plants across three management
regimes in the study area
(i) Trees (>30 cm of girth at breast height)
No. of
No. of
No. of
sample plots species
species
Tr. no.
(50 4 m)
observed
estimated
HPA-1
16
21
53.5
HPA-2
16
22
39.4
HPA-3
16
18
28.5
HPA-4
16
14
17.4
HPA-5
16
13
27.3
HPA-6
16
22
29.7
HPA-7
16
17
30.7
HPA-8
16
23
46.2
Pooled
53
62.0
MPA-1
16
21
49.9
MPA-2
16
18
27.8
MPA-3
16
22
33.7
MPA-4
16
17
23.6
MPA-5
12
13
26.3
MPA-6
16
21
41.6
MPA-7
16
17
62.8
MPA-8
16
21
28.9
Pooled
52
60.0
LPA-1
9
4
4.0
LPA-2
16
20
46.0
LPA-3
16
24
49.2
LPA-4
12
17
28.8
LPA-5
16
15
35.5
LPA-6
16
20
47.4
Pooled
46
53.0
(ii) Shrubs (>10 and < 30 cm of girth at ground height)
No. of
No. of
No. of
species
Tr. No.
(4 4 m)
observed
estimated
HPA-1
32
31
46
HPA-2
32
39
63
HPA-3
32
34
55
HPA-4
32
23
52
HPA-5
32
26
38
HPA-6
32
37
40
HPA-7
32
27
33
HPA-8
32
46
57
Pooled
121
162
MPA-1
32
39
103
Fishers
alpha
index
10.4
12.0
8.4
5.3
12.4
7.9
6.2
9.0
8.9
9.8
7.1
8.8
4.5
13.4
12.4
8.0
9.0
9.1
1.2
8.1
10.3
5.8
7.1
8.1
6.8
Shannon
index
2.6
2.6
2.5
10.2
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.4
3.4
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.4
2.7
1.9
2.6
2.4
0.5
2.4
2.7
1.3
2.1
2.5
1.9
Simpson
index
9.8
9.7
9.5
8.9
16.9
7.2
6.5
8.1
9.6
11.5
8.7
7.8
4.6
16.5
14.7
3.7
10.0
9.7
1.3
7.3
10.7
1.9
5.0
9.2
5.9
Fishers
alpha
index
8.2
11.4
8.4
5.9
7.8
10.0
6.1
11.0
8.6
13.6
Shannon
index
2.2
2.3
2.0
1.8
2.1
2.7
1.8
2.8
2.2
2.4
Simpson
index
5.2
4.9
4.2
3.7
5.4
8.0
3.1
10.1
5.6
6.4
(continued)
47

Table 4.2 (continued)
No. of
No. of
No. of
species
Tr. No.
(4 4 m)
observed
estimated
MPA-2
32
34
57
MPA-3
32
45
62
MPA-4
32
40
64
MPA-5
24
22
32
MPA-6
32
14
20
MPA-7
32
30
51
MPA-8
32
17
23
Pooled
150
219
LPA-1
18
8
13
LPA-2
32
22
27
LPA-3
32
24
34
LPA-4
32
15
18
LPA-5
32
21
25
LPA-6
32
15
21
Pooled
107
143
(iii) Herbs (<10 cm of girth at ground height)
No. of
No. of
No. of
species
Tr. no.
(1 1 m)
observed
estimated
HPA-1
64
45
59
HPA-2
64
53
78
HPA-3
64
43
60
HPA-4
64
41
64
HPA-5
64
37
56
HPA-6
64
48
72
HPA-7
64
52
84
HPA-8
64
52
96
Pooled
92
106
MPA-1
64
50
85
MPA-2
64
52
80
MPA-3
64
50
74
MPA-4
64
56
72
MPA-5
48
56
76
MPA-6
64
45
57
MPA-7
64
83
59
MPA-8
64
40
53
Pooled
90
123
LPA-1
36
45
68
LPA-2
64
60
122
LPA-3
64
43
63
Fishers
alpha
index
11.1
12.7
12.7
7.9
3.3
9.0
3.9
9.3
2.1
5.3
6.3
3.8
4.5
3.5
4.3
Shannon
index
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.3
1.6
2.4
1.7
2.3
0.9
1.8
2.2
1.9
1.4
1.8
1.7
Simpson
index
7.8
9.3
9.4
6.2
3.1
6.8
3.6
6.6
1.6
3.2
6.7
4.5
2.8
4.1
3.8
Fishers
alpha
index
22.1
24.5
20.9
20.6
17.1
23.9
27.9
24.0
22.6
22.8
25.0
20.6
25.2
29.6
20.0
42.4
16.1
25.2
24.9
29.3
15.8
Shannon
index
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.4
4.0
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.2
Simpson
index
27.4
27.6
22.8
23.7
20.3
25.3
33.8
21.5
25.3
27.1
31.5
25.0
32.8
38.8
21.8
47.0
17.1
30.1
33.1
27.2
18.8
(continued)
48

No. of
No. of
No. of
species
Tr. no.
(1 1 m)
observed
estimated
LPA-4
48
40
70
LPA-5
64
42
63
LPA-6
64
52
81
Pooled
52
61
Fishers
alpha
index
19.1
16.4
20.8
21.0
Shannon
index
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.3
Simpson
index
21.1
20.0
22.2
23.7
Table 4.3 Estimates of species richness of birds across three management regimes in the study
area using SPECRICH
Tr. no.
HPA-1
HPA-2
HPA-3
HPA-4
HPA-5
HPA-6
HPA-7
HPA-8
Pooled
MPA-1
MPA-2
MPA-3
MPA-4
MPA-5
MPA-6
MPA-7
MPA-8
Pooled
LPA-1
LPA-2
LPA-3
LPA-4
LPA-5
LPA-6
Pooled
No. of sampling
points
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
12
16
16
16
9
16
16
12
16
16
No. of species
observed
45
48
54
57
55
50
57
42
128
62
59
49
51
41
50
63
47
123
39
52
37
48
54
50
99
No. of species
estimated
66
69
103
86
93
91
88
61
163
85
91
75
77
116
66
112
98
175
40
75
74
74
79
68
125
Standard error
6.97
6.83
13.98
8.47
10.32
12.33
8.45
6.16
6.12
6.48
9.11
7.97
7.48
27.45
5.65
13.64
16.64
14.76
16.74
5.09
7.09
12.74
7.20
6.16
7.56
49
Table 4.4 Number of sightings of large mammals during line-transect surveys in the study area
Tr. no.
HPA-1
HPA-2
HPA-3
HPA-4
HPA-5
HPA-6
HPA-7
HPA-8
Total
MPA-1
MPA-2
MPA-3
MPA-4
MPA-5
MPA-6
MPA-7
MPA-8
Total
LPA-1
LPA-2
LPA-3
LPA-4
LPA-5
LPA-6
Total
Grand
total
Walk
effort (km)
17.2
17.1
19.2
19.2
18.6
19.5
19.1
19.2
149.1
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.1
12.1
19.5
19.6
19.2
146.5
9.7
19.0
19.6
9.9
19.7
19.0
96.9
392.5
Terrestrial
CHV MJK PIG CHT
0
4
0
3
0
2
1
7
0
1
0
4
0
4
2
1
2
4
3 17
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
4
18
6 35
0
4
0
2
0
1
2
4
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
6
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
5
0
1
0
4
0
2
0
4
0
10
7 28
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2 10
4
28
15 73
SBR
0
0
3
2
9
1
2
0
17
6
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
32
Arboreal
GAR ELP GSQ LGR
3
2
6
6
3
3
10
3
0
3
21 17
4
1
8
4
6
5
5
1
0
0
4 15
0
1
8 12
1
1
6
7
17
16
68 65
0
3
15
5
2
1
9
1
3
1
4
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
6
1
3
0
4
0
0
1
9
0
2
1
6
4
10
8
56 11
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2 10
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
7
6 14
31
31 130 90
BNT
3
1
1
4
2
0
1
0
12
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
3
10
2
0
2
0
7
0
11
33
Total
27
30
50
30
54
23
25
19
258
37
24
10
14
11
14
17
23
150
12
3
15
1
19
9
59
467
HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area, CHV mouse
deer, MJK muntjac, PIG wild pig, CHT chital, SBR sambar, GAR gaur, ELP elephant, GSQ giant
squirrel, LGR langur, BNT bonnet monkey
4.2.4
Abundances of Plant Species
The stand density of trees (number of trees per ha) varied from 129 trees per ha to 425
trees per ha across all the transect lines. Total basal area of trees also varied across
transects from 78 m2 per ha to 399 m2 per ha. The number of individual trees in each
survey plot ranged from 31 to 121. Tree height ranged from 11 m to 21.41 m, while the
average tree height encountered in vegetation sampling plots was 17.74 m. The average
canopy density in the study area was 69 % (range 4192 %). Detailed abundance estimates of trees across the three management regimes are given in Table 4.5 (i).
50
In HPA Terminalia tomentosa was the most dominant tree species, followed by
Anogeissus latifolia, Tectona grandis, Lagerstroemia microcarpa and Dalbergia
latifolia, whereas teak tree Tectona grandis was the most dominant tree in the MPA
regime. The other dominant trees in MPA were Anogeissus latifolia, Terminalia
tomentosa, Dalbergia latifolia and Pterocarpus marsupium. Tectona grandis, followed by Terminalia tomentosa, Anogeissus latifolia, Lagerstroemia microcarpa
and Randia spinosa were the dominant tree species in LPA regime.
Stem density of shrubs varied across transect lines with a minimum of 3160
stems per ha to a maximum of 13,086 stems per ha. Average basal area for shrubs
was 7.0 m2 per ha, while the maximum was 12.2 m2 per ha. The average height of
shrub stems was 1.7 m (range 1.272.57 m). Shrub cover percentage varied from a
minimum of 7 % to a maximum of 52 %, with an average value of 25.3 %. Details of
abundance of shrub plants are shown in Table 4.5 (ii).
Table 4.5 Abundance of plants across three management regimes in the study area
(i) Trees (>30 cm of girth at breast height)
No. of sample
No. of
Tr. no.
plots (50 4 m)
individuals
HPA-1
16
85
HPA-2
16
69
HPA-3
16
70
HPA-4
16
76
HPA-5
16
44
HPA-6
16
121
HPA-7
16
97
HPA-8
16
114
Pooled
84.5
MPA-1
16
76
MPA-2
16
92
MPA-3
16
101
MPA-4
16
99
MPA-5
12
31
MPA-6
16
65
MPA-7
16
67
MPA-8
16
88
Pooled
77.4
LPA-1
9
38
LPA-2
16
89
LPA-3
16
98
LPA-4
12
102
LPA-5
16
65
LPA-6
16
92
Pooled
80.7
No. of trees
per ha
265.6
215.6
218.8
237.5
137.5
378.1
303.1
356.3
264.1
237.5
287.5
315.6
309.4
129.2
203.1
209.4
275.0
245.8
211.1
278.1
306.3
425.0
203.1
287.5
285.2
Basal area
(m2) per ha
274.3
340.2
312.1
398.8
78.1
285.6
214.9
207.1
263.9
300.5
173.7
154.7
218.9
146.2
123.5
271.5
163.4
194.0
91.2
210.0
200.5
356.8
241.2
180.7
213.4
Canopy
cover (%)
79
80
83
82
47
80
67
41
69.9
59
42
62
84
74
60
80
58
64.9
87
69
74
92
41
78
73.5
(continued)
51

No. of sample
plots (4 4 m)
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
No. of
Tr. no.
individuals
HPA-1
353
HPA-2
330
HPA-3
466
HPA-4
290
HPA-5
213
HPA-6
391
HPA-7
512
HPA-8
670
Pooled
403.1
MPA-1
32
224
MPA-2
32
234
MPA-3
32
422
MPA-4
32
284
MPA-5
24
128
MPA-6
32
220
MPA-7
32
246
MPA-8
32
302
Pooled
257.5
LPA-1
18
91
LPA-2
32
329
LPA-3
32
273
LPA-4
24
196
LPA-5
32
473
LPA-6
32
241
Pooled
267.2
Tr. no.
HPA-1
HPA-2
HPA-3
HPA-4
HPA-5
HPA-6
HPA-7
HPA-8
Pooled
MPA-1
MPA-2
MPA-3
No. of sample
plots (1 1 m)
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
No. of
individuals
45
53
44
41
37
48
52
52
46.5
51
52
50
No. of stems
per ha
6895
6445
9102
5664
4160
7637
10,000
13,086
7873.5
4375
4570
8242
5547
3333
4297
4805
5898
5133.5
3160
6426
5332
5104
9238
4707
5661.2
Herb density
per ha
7031
8281
6875
6406
5781
7500
8125
8125
7265.6
7969
8125
7813
Basal area
(m2) per ha
9.5
5.2
10.4
6.9
5.8
8.3
12.2
10.1
8.6
12.0
4.7
9.9
5.4
2.9
6.5
3.0
10.9
6.9
3.3
6.7
8.6
3.2
5.5
3.4
5.1
Cover
density
(%)
27.0
22.0
43.0
40.0
33.0
20.0
52.0
20.0
32.1
19.0
14.0
40.0
24.0
7.0
27.0
11.0
24.0
20.8
27.0
16.0
13.0
9.0
37.0
31.0
22.2
Ground cover (%)

Exposed
soil
Litter
6
86
17
66
16
69
22
62
17
63
18
51
11
87
30
50
17.0
66.7
8
73
18
53
18
74
Grass
8
17
15
16
20
31
2
20
16.3
18
30
8
(continued)
52
Ground cover (%)

No. of
Herb density
Exposed
Tr. no.
individuals
per ha
soil
Litter
MPA-4
56
8750
24
70
MPA-5
56
11,667
12
79
MPA-6
45
7031
15
75
MPA-7
83
12,969
27
49
MPA-8
40
6250
6
77
Pooled
54.1
8821.6
15.9
68.6
LPA-1
36
45
12,500
23
69
LPA-2
64
60
9375
52
32
LPA-3
64
43
6719
14
78
LPA-4
48
40
8333
28
44
LPA-5
64
42
6563
16
80
LPA-6
64
52
8125
11
61
Pooled
47.0
8602.4
23.9
60.8
No. of sample
plots (1 1 m)
64
48
64
64
64
Grass
6
9
10
24
18
15.2
8
16
8
27
5
28
15.3
Lantana camara was the dominant shrub followed by Chromolaena odorata,

Helicteres isora, Randia spinosa and Canthium parviflorum in HPA. MPA and LPA
regimes were dominated by Chromolaena odorata, and the species composition of
other dominant shrubs was similar to those in HPA except for Cipadessa baccifera
which was dominant only in LPA regime.
The mean density of herbaceous plants per transect line ranged from 11,563 to
25,938 per ha, while the minimum number of individual plants was 37, and the
maximum was 83 individuals, as recorded on vegetation survey plots. The herbaceous ground cover consisted of 231 % grass cover, while leaf litter covered
3287 % of area. The exposed soil category of ground cover ranged between 6 and
52 %. Table 4.5 (iii) provides details of herbaceous plant abundance across each of
the three management regimes in the study area. Among herbs, Chromolaena
odorata dominated in all the three management regimes. Other dominant herb species in HPA were Justicia simplex, Randia spinosa, Crotalaria calycina and Urena
lobata, while in MPA and LPA regimes, other dominant herb species were Justicia
simplex, Jasminum ritchiei, Randia spinosa and Acacia pennata.
4.2.5
Abundances of Bird Species
Although count data were collected for 19 foraging guilds of birds (see Appendix
II), only eight of these guilds met the sample size criterion (number of sightings
> 60) required for rigorous estimation of abundance from point-transect surveys
53
(Buckland et al. 2001). Density of gallinaceous birds was estimated from linetransect surveys, while the densities of all the other guilds of birds were estimated
using point-transect surveys (see Chap. 3).
In point-transect surveys, the detection probability for all the guilds of birds
ranged between 0.13 and 0.42. The effective strip width within which birds were
detected ranged between 13.4 and 36.3 m. The half-normal detection function with
cosine adjustment term fitted the data well for all guilds except for omnivorous
birds, for which hazard rate model with cosine adjustment term best described the
data. The estimated cluster size of birds varied between 1.2 and 2.6 birds.
Among the eight food-guild categories for which we could estimate population
densities, insectivorous birds (n = 1126) were the most abundant in the study region
followed by insecti-nectivorous (n = 407), omnivorous (n = 418), insecti-frugivorous
(n = 467) and frugi-granivorous (n = 349) birds. Granivorous (n = 65) and gallinaceous (n = 141) birds were the least abundant birds.
Population density of insectivorous birds ranged between 515 and 634 birds per
ha across three management regimes, while the density of the second most dominant group of birds, the insecti-nectivorous guild, varied from 198 to 284 birds per
ha. Frugivorous birds were sighted in all 22 transects, while granivorous birds were
among the least abundant guild of birds. Estimates of density of different guilds of
birds together with model selection statistic are presented in Table 4.6.
We also estimated densities of three target species of birds (hill myna, jungle
babbler and red-vented bulbul) that are likely to represent the species that specialise
in their habitat choice. Hill myna, which prefers forested habitats, was present only
in 19 transects, and its density on each transect varied between 0 and 14 birds per
ha. Jungle babbler, a bird that prefers forest-edge habitats, was present in all transects, although few in numbers. Their density ranged from 0.75 birds to six birds per
ha. Red-vented bulbul, a generalist species, was ubiquitously present in all the 22
transect lines with a minimum density of 0.8 and a maximum of 11.5 birds per ha.
4.2.6
Abundances of Mammalian Species
During the line-transect survey for mammals, a total of 467 clusters of animals
belonging to 11 different species were observed. Malabar giant squirrel (n = 130),
common langur (n = 90) and chital (n = 73) were relatively more common, while all
other species occurred more sparsely across the study area. The encounter rates of
mouse deer, muntjac and wild pig were very low, while the encounter rate for other
species ranged from 0.03 to 0.45 clusters per km walk (Table 4.7). The detection
probability for all species ranged from 0.43 to 0.56, and the effective strip width
varied between 28 and 50 m. While estimating detection probabilities, the halfnormal detection function with cosine adjustment term (HNcos) fitted the distance
data for giant squirrel, chital and elephant species, whereas a uniform function with
cosine adjustment term (UNcos) described the data better for sambar, Hanuman
Global parameters
k
n
337
1126
337
177
337
141
337
65
337
418
337
467
337
407
337
349
Model
HNcos
HNcos
HNcos
HNcos
HRcos
HNcos
HNcos
HNcos
p
0.13
0.23
0.42
0.22
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.24
ESW
27.24
36.33
13.39
35.57
36.26
33.22
25.71
35.31
E(s)
1.61
2.31
1.22
1.48
2.55
1.61
1.65
1.85
HPA
D
515.33
71.22
14.02
12.88
246.57
193.11
198.02
96.76
CV(D)
5.17
10.50
27.42
14.40
12.21
5.68
10.00
6.76
MPA
D
633.60
68.11
11.48
29.72
134.40
241.14
229.37
130.33
CV(D)
5.17
10.51
17.97
14.40
12.20
5.66
10.05
6.77
LPA
D
567.08
70.07
10.79
11.02
152.51
229.78
283.62
143.43
CV(D)
5.22
10.51
28.74
14.40
12.21
5.66
10.06
6.81
Management regimes: HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area. Detection function models: HNcos half-normal with
cosine adjustment term, HRcos hazard rate with cosine adjustment term. Parameters: p detection probability, ESW effective strip width, E(s) estimated cluster
size, k number of point transects, n number of sightings, D density of birds per hectare, CV(D) coefficient of variation of D
Species
Insectivores
Frugivores
Galliformes
Granivores
Omnivores
Insecti-frugivores
Insecti-nectivores
Frugi-granivores
Table 4.6 Model selection results, detection function parameters and density of guilds of birds in three management regimes in the study area
54
4.4
Comparison of Status of Biodiversity Components Across Management Regimes
55
langur and bonnet monkey. Distance data on gaur were best explained by hazard
rate model.
In view of the low sample sizes, we pooled the data for terrestrial and arboreal
mammals and used a global detection function to estimate detection probability and
cluster size parameters under each of this category. Stratum-wise density estimates
were then computed for each management regime. The terrestrial mammal density
was 10.5 animals per km2 in least protected area, while it was 22.5 animals per km2
in highly protected area. The density of arboreal mammals ranged between the 8
and 25 animals per km2 across three management regimes. The detailed results of
mammal species densities are presented in Table 4.7.
4.3
Human Disturbance Levels
The results of estimated human disturbance assessment metrics (see Chap. 3) are
presented in Table 4.8. The overall Human Disturbance Index (HDI) value along
each transect line varied between 22 and 439 signs of human activities encountered
per unit km of sampling effort. As predicted, HDI value was highest in least protected management regime area. Signs of forest product extraction were lowest in
the highly protected area, although weed infestation and exposed soil were more
widely prevalent under this management regime. Moreover, levels of human disturbance varied substantially both within and among transects.
4.4
Comparison of Status of Biodiversity Components

Across Management Regimes
Status of different biodiversity components in terms of their species richness, diversity indices and species abundance was assessed across the three management
regimes using box-and-whisker plots. These plots provide a good overview of the
distribution of data and are particularly useful in examining the difference among
different datasets without assuming any particular underlying statistical distribution
for these data. Results of comparison of the status of biodiversity components are
presented in following subsections.
4.4.1
Plants
Estimates of species richness of shrubs (plants with >2 cm and <30 cm GGH) at
LPA were significantly lower when compared to those at HPA and MPA. However,
species richness estimates of trees and herbs did not significantly vary across
38.89
50.00
40.86
42.58
HNcos
UNcos
UNcos
UNcos
0.56
0.50
0.55
0.53
ESW
NE
NE
NE
29.93
33.18
28.04
46.65
29.28
Global parameters
Model
p
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
HNcos
0.46
UNcos
0.55
HRcos
0.43
HNcos
0.47
HNcos
0.49
1.21
3.00
4.94
2.23
E(s)
NE
NE
NE
3.08
1.24
2.00
1.34
2.22
68
65
12
142
HPA
n
4
18
6
28
17
17
16
89
0.45
0.44
0.08
0.95
n/l
NE
NE
NE
0.19
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.60
6.98
14.48
4.86
24.99
D
NE
NE
NE
9.66
1.76
3.11
1.35
22.58
24.22
26.61
37.64
19.06
CV(D)
NE
NE
NE
43.75
42.53
45.23
29.65
32.60
52
10
10
73
0.35
0.07
0.06
0.50
MPA
n
n/l
0
NE
10 NE
7 NE
25 0.17
10 0.07
10 0.07
8 0.05
70 0.48
5.51
2.27
4.13
13.07
D
NE
NE
NE
8.78
1.28
2.43
0.79
18.07
22.48
50.71
35.23
23.72
CV(D)
NE
NE
NE
24.89
58.40
44.21
35.29
17.24
6
13
11
30
LPA
n
0
0
2
10
4
4
7
27
0.06
0.13
0.11
0.31
n/l
NE
NE
NE
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.28
0.96
4.45
6.86
8.12
D
NE
NE
NE
5.31
0.97
1.10
1.04
10.54
75.27
61.17
60.44
41.19
CV(D)
NE
NE
NE
46.50
97.00
67.76
49.71
32.92
Management regimes: HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area. Large mammals: CHV mouse deer, MJK muntjac,
PIG wild pig, CHT chital, SBR sambar, GAR gaur, ELP elephant, GSQ giant squirrel, LGR langur, BNT bonnet monkey. Detection function models: HNcos
half-normal with cosine term, UNcos uniform with cosine term, HRcos hazard rate with cosine term. Parameters: p detection probability, ESW effective strip
width, E(s) estimated cluster size, n number of sightings, n/l encounter rate corrected for detectability, D density of animals/sq km, CV(D) coefficient of variation of D, NE not estimated
Species
CHV
MJK
PIG
CHT
SBR
GAR
ELP
Terrestrial
(pooled)
GSQ
LGR
BNT
Arboreal
(pooled)
Table 4.7 Model selection results, detection function parameters and density of large mammals in three management regimes in the study area
56
Tr. No.
HPA-1
HPA-2
HPA-3
HPA-4
HPA-5
HPA-6
HPA-7
HPA-8
Average
MPA-1
MPA-2
MPA-3
MPA-4
MPA-5
MPA-6
MPA-7
MPA-8
Average
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
Tr. length
(km)
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
LP
49
6
12
7
2
0
0
20
12.0
5
19
8
255
47
38
46
26
55.5
CS
18
29
10
3
18
20
0
51
18.6
28
32
193
306
81
183
126
71
127.5
No. of signs
CB
4
0
14
0
0
0
1
0
2.4
0
0
24
70
165
23
14
1
37.1
TN
46
25
77
26
17
15
27
38
33.9
65
98
84
268
91
84
170
61
115.1
LG
23
1
4
42
1
0
16
28
14.4
5
1
15
15
27
1
4
4
9.0
CD
0
0
0
81
0
0
0
0
10.1
0
0
0
22
29
0
27
0
9.8
PC
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
1
0
4
2
0
2
1.1
HT
14
3
4
2
4
5
2
0
4.3
0
5
15
60
17
3
37
10
18.4
FR
11
2
3
1
9
6
0
14
5.8
2
7
9
1
5
0
10
2
4.5
WI
32
16
31
19
28
11
32
0
21.1
0
29
0
2
0
31
9
31
12.8
Frequency of sign
ES
21
16
30
19
16
8
30
25
20.6
14
22
10
8
8
1
18
21
12.8
DC
1
0
1
19
7
5
0
13
5.8
21
8
4
14
23
29
28
3
16.3

(continued)
Human
disturbance
index (signs/km)
68.4
30.6
58.8
68.8
32.5
21.9
33.8
59.1
46.7
43.8
69.1
113.4
319.1
225.9
123.4
152.8
72.5
140.0
Table 4.8 Human disturbance index (No. of human disturbance signs observed/km) across the three management categories in the study area
4.4
57
LP
139
46
30
68
4
35
53.7
CS
237
414
44
188
2
87
162.0
No. of signs
CB
77
16
52
33
0
10
31.3
TN
116
167
116
116
46
102
110.5
LG
27
26
74
6
7
59
33.2
CD
10
12
0
8
0
0
5.0
PC
0
2
2
0
0
4
1.3
HT
40
23
1
41
1
2
18.0
FR
6
11
3
4
2
7
5.5
WI
14
18
0
8
19
0
9.8
Frequency of sign
ES
6
20
11
8
22
12
13.2
DC
31
27
23
31
18
20
25.0
Human
disturbance
index (signs/km)
439.4
244.4
111.3
222.2
37.8
105.6
193.4
HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area; Signs: LP lopped trees, CS cut stems, CB cut bamboo clumps, TN tree
notches, LG logged trees, CD cattle dung/tracks, PC poaching signs, HT human trails, FR fire, WI weed infestation, ES exposed soil, DC deadwood removal
signs
Tr. No.
LPA-1
LPA-2
LPA-3
LPA-4
LPA-5
LPA-6
Average
Tr. length
(km)
1.6
3.2
3.2
2.3
3.2
3.2
58
4.4
59
management regimes. Among the diversity indices of plants, the median values of
all the three indices for shrubs in LPA significantly differed from those in HPA and
MPA. The Simpson index for trees and the Fishers alpha index and Shannon index
for herbs in LPA also were lower when compared with those at other management
regimes (Fig. 4.2 (i), (ii), and (iii)).
Fig. 4.2 Box-and-whisker plots of plant species richness and diversity indices across management
regimes in the study area. In the box plots, the median is in black inside the box; the 25th and 75th
percentiles define the ends of the box; the length of the box is the interquartile range; whiskers
indicate the largest and smallest values above and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either end; and outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside
the upper and lower whiskers; HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least
protected area, GBH girth at breast height, GGH girth at ground height. (i) Trees. (ii) Shrubs. (iii)
Herbs
60
Fig. 4.2 (continued)
Abundance of shrubs, both in terms of basal area and stem density, was significantly high in HPA, when compared with MPA and LPA (Fig. 4.3 (ii)). Plant abundance of both trees and herbs did not drastically vary across management regimes
(note the median values in Fig. 4.3 (i), (iii)).
Commercially valuable timber tree, teak Tectona grandis, dominated in the LPA,
while the tree species composition in HPA consisted of species belonging to
Terminalia, Anogeissus and Pterocarpus species (Table 4.9).
4.4
61
4.4.2
Birds
The species richness estimates for birds were markedly similar across the three
management regimes, although it was marginally lower in LPA (Fig. 4.4).
Among the eight guilds of birds, abundance of omnivores and insect-frugivores
were markedly lower in LPA. All other guilds of birds did not show marked difference across management regimes (Fig. 4.5 (i), (ii)).
In all these box plots (Fig. 4.5 (i), (ii) and (iii)), the median is in black inside the
box; the 25th and 75th percentiles define the ends of the box; the length of the box
is the interquartile range; whiskers indicate the largest and smallest values above
and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either end; and
62
Fig. 4.3 Box-and-whisker plots of plant abundance across management regimes in the study area.
In the box plots, the median is in black inside the box; the 25th and 75th percentiles define the ends
of the box; the length of the box is the interquartile range; whiskers indicate the largest and smallest values above and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either end; and
outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside the upper and lower whiskers.
HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area, GBH girth at
breast height, GGH girth at ground height. (i) Trees (ii) Shrubs (iii) Herbs
4.4
63

Table 4.9 Dominant tree species in three management regimes in the study area
Highly protected area (HPA)
Terminalia tomentosa
Miliusa velutina
Anogeissus latifolia
Lagerstroemia microcarpa
Tectona grandis
Syzygium cumini
Stereospermum personatum
Dalbergia latifolia
Grewia tiliaefolia
Randia spinosa
Medium protected area

(MPA)
Tectona grandis
Pterocarpus marsupium
Dalbergia latifolia
Radermachera xylocarpa
Phyllanthus emblica
Mitragyna parvifolia
Least protected area (LPA)

Tectona grandis
Terminalia bellirica
Grewia tiliaefolia
Randia spinosa
outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside the upper and
lower whiskers.
The abundance of forest-specialist species like hill myna was highest in HPA,
while its abundance significantly dropped in MPA and LPA regimes. The forestedge species, jungle babbler, also, was at low abundance in LPA. Abundance of
red-vented bulbul, a generalist species, did not vary across management regimes
(Fig. 4.5).
64
Fig. 4.4 Box-and-whisker plots of bird species richness across management regimes in the study
area. In the box plots, the median is in black inside the box; the 25th and 75th percentiles define
the ends of the box; the length of the box is the interquartile range; whiskers indicate the largest
and smallest values above and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either
end; and outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside the upper and lower
whiskers. HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area
4.4.3
Mammals
Arboreal mammals showed a marked decline (~50 %) in their densities in MPA and
LPA regimes and were most abundant in HPA regime (Fig. 4.6 (b)). In contrast, terrestrial mammals showed a declining trend in LPA when compared with their abundances in HPA and MPA, although the decline was less pronounced. The difference
in the abundance between HPA and LPA was nearly 50 %, but their abundances
appeared to vary a lot within their respective management regimes as evidenced by
the length of the box that represented the interquartile range. The plot also showed
an outlier in HPA suggesting very high abundance of terrestrial mammals in one
particular transect (Fig. 4.6 (a)).
We also compared the abundances of two common species, chital and giant
squirrel, for which sufficient sample sizes of detections on transects were available
to estimate densities directly across management regimes (Fig. 4.6 (c) and (d)).
4.4
65
Fig. 4.5 Box-and-whisker plots of bird abundance across management regimes in the study area.
Chital seemed to prefer MPA that had relatively more open canopy when compared
with HPA. However, LPA marked by most open canopy and high levels of anthropogenic disturbances had lowest chital density. The Malabar giant squirrel density
was least in LPA (<1 animal per km2), whereas it was very high (nearly seven times
more) under HPA and MPA management regimes.
66
4.4.4
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
All the three management regimes showed similar NDVI values. However, the
median values were lower in MPA, although higher in LPA and comparable with
HPA (Fig. 4.7 (a)). These results indicate ecologically similar forest vegetation
structure across three management regimes. However, NDVI varies significantly
within each management regime type. This supports the view that observed differences in biodiversity are largely attributable to human impacts rather than inherent
ecological variations among the areas under the three management regimes.
4.4
67
4.4.5
Human Disturbance Index
Human Disturbance Index value was highest in LPA, while it was least in HPA
category. The measured disturbance levels appeared to be dictated by the type of
management regime and significantly differed across the three management regime
types (Fig. 4.7 (b)).
68
Fig. 4.6 Box-and-whisker plots of mammal abundance across management regimes in the study
area. In the box plots, the median is in black inside the box; the 25th and 75th percentiles define
the ends of the box; the length of the box is the interquartile range; whiskers indicate the largest
and smallest values above and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either
end; and outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside the upper and lower
whiskers. HPA highly protected area, MPA medium protected area, LPA least protected area
4.5
Impact of Habitat Variables and Human Disturbance

Factors on the Status of Biodiversity Components
We first assessed if there is any relation between the two predictor variables (NDVI
and HDI) used to investigate their influence on different components of biodiversity
in terms of their species richness or composition, diversity and abundance. Figure 4.8
shows no relation between these two explanatory variables (r2 = 0) and confirms our
a priori hypothesis about these two independent variables. Their influences on various biodiversity components are independently assessed, and the results are reported
in Figs. 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13.
4.5
Impact of Habitat Variables and Human Disturbance Factors on the Status
69
Fig. 4.7 Box-and-whisker plots of Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) values and
Human Disturbance Index (HDI) values across management regimes in the study area. In the box
plots, the median is in black inside the box; the 25th and 75th percentiles define the ends of the
box; the length of the box is the interquartile range; whiskers indicate the largest and smallest
values above and below the box that are 1.5 times the interquartile range from either end; and
outliers exceeding these, if any, are indicated by open dots outside the upper and lower whiskers.
Fig. 4.8 Scatter plot of
Normalised Difference
Vegetation Index (NDVI)
against Human
Disturbance Index (HDI).
Each data point represents
average values at each
transect (n = 22), and the
solid line is a linear fit
4.5.1
Plants
The NDVI showed a weak negative influence on the estimates of tree species richness, while it had a relatively stronger influence on species richness estimates of
shrubs (r2 = 0.15, p = 0.08) and herbs (r2 = 0.26, p = 0.02). However, the species richness estimates also were weakly affected by HDI (Fig. 4.9). Among the three diversity indices, Fishers alpha and Simpson indices for trees and Fishers alpha and
Shannon indices for shrubs were affected by HDI, while all the three indices for
70
Fig. 4.9 Scatter plots of estimates of species richness and diversity indices for plants against
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Human Disturbance Index (HDI). Each data
point represents average values at each transect (n = 22), and the solid line is a linear fit. Values of
regression slope are given when the goodness of fit (r2) is > 0.2, and p is significant at 85 % level
(p < 0.15); GBH girth at breast height, GGH girth at ground height. (i) Trees (ii) Shrubs (iii) Herbs
shrubs responded negatively to NDVI. Herbaceous plant diversity showed a weak

positive association with HDI and a weak negative association with NDVI values
across transects.
The stand density for trees was strongly influenced by NDVI (r2 = 0.27, p = 0.01),
while the effect of HDI was weak. Both NDVI and HDI influenced basal area and
stem density of shrubs, although the effect of HDI was relatively stronger (Fig. 4.10).
NDVI had no influence on density of herbaceous plants, while HDI had a strong
positive influence (r2 = 0.46, p = 0.001).
4.5
71
4.5.2
Birds
Bird species richness was unaffected by NDVI, although HDI had a weak negative
impact on it (Fig. 4.11 (a) and (b)). Mixed effects of NDVI and HDI on the abundance of bird guilds are shown in Fig. 4.12 (a) to (p). Gallinaceous and frugivorous
bird densities were positively impacted by NDVI, while it had a negative influence
on omnivorous and insecti-nectivorous birds. HDI primarily influenced insectifrugivorous, granivorous, frugivorous, omnivorous and insectivorous foraging
guilds of birds. Gallinaceous and insecti-nectivorous bird densities were not
impacted by HDI along transects. Frugi-granivorous bird density was unaffected by
both NDVI and HDI.
Density of a habitat specialist bird such as hill myna was negatively influenced
by HDI (r2 = 0.18, p = 0.05), while NDVI had no effect (Fig. 4.12 (u) and (v)). Both
NDVI and HDI had a weak negative effect on density of jungle babbler (Fig. 4.12
72
(s) and (t)), a forest-edge specialist, while the density of red-vented bulbul, a generalist bird (Fig. 4.12 (r)), was also affected by HDI (Fig. 4.12 (q) to (v)).
4.5.3
Mammals
The density of terrestrial mammals was positively impacted by NDVI values and
negatively affected by levels of human disturbance (Fig. 4.13(a) and (b)). HDI had
a pronounced negative effect (Fig. 4.13(d)) on arboreal mammal density (r2 = 0.19,
p = 0.04). Chital abundance showed a very weak association with both NDVI and
HDI, while giant squirrel abundance was negatively associated with HDI (Fig. 4.13
(e) to (h)).
4.5
73
4.5.4
Human Disturbance Impacts on Biodiversity

After Controlling for Habitat
Although both NDVI (a surrogate for forest vegetation structure and composition)
and HDI (human disturbances) have varying influences on the status of biodiversity
components (both in terms of richness and abundance), we were interested in investigating the effect of human disturbance, which is a good surrogate for the management regime, after accounting for the habitat effects. The partial Mantel tests are
useful tools to establish such relationship. The results of these partial Mantel tests
are exhibited in Table 4.10.
These results show that among plants, the impact of HDI on all the three diversity indices for tree species and the diversity index for rarity (ShannonWiener
74
Fig. 4.10 Scatter plots of plant abundance against Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI) and Human Disturbance Index (HDI). Each data point represents average values at each
transect (n = 22), and the solid line is a linear fit. Values of regression slope are given when the
goodness of fit (r2) is > 0.2, and p is significant at 85 % level (p < 0.15); GBH girth at breast height,
GGH girth at ground height. (i) Trees, (ii) Shrubs, (iii) Herbs
index) of shrub species is significant (p < 0.1). The estimated number of tree species,
as well as the observed number of species of trees and shrubs, is significantly
affected by the level of human disturbance prevalent in the area. The results also
confirm that the basal area of shrub plants and the density of herbaceous plants are
severely affected by human disturbance levels.
However, other vegetation parameters (e.g. tree density per ha) are not affected
by human disturbances mainly because of plantations where the native species are
already replaced by teak plantations. The number of estimated shrub species, shrub
density per ha and shrub cover density were also not affected significantly as the
native species are found to be replaced by the invasive species like Lantana camera
and Chromolaena odorata, in the disturbed areas. The shrub diversity is greatly
4.5
75
reduced in least protected areas, which is reflected in the ShannonWiener index

(p < 0.1). The results also confirm that the basal area of shrub plants, which is density per ha of shrubs, is also significantly reduced in disturbed area. The density of
herbaceous plants is severely affected by human disturbance levels, and the herb
density was found to be least in LPAs, which is suggestive of poor regeneration in
LPA.
Among the bird foraging guilds, abundance of insecti-frugivorous guild followed
by granivorous guild is depressed by the human disturbance regime, while all the
three exemplar bird species (hill myna, jungle babbler, red-vented bulbul)
representing different habitat choice patterns (forest specialist vs. forest edge vs.
generalist) also have lower abundance due to high human disturbance levels. The
estimates of overall bird species richness are also significantly affected by human
disturbances. Bird densities of omnivorous guild, gallinaceous guild, frugivorous
guild, insectivorous guild and frugi-granivorous guild were not significantly lower.
76
Fig. 4.11 Scatter plots of estimates of species richness and diversity indices for birds against
Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Human Disturbance Index (HDI). Each data
point represents average values at each transect (n = 22), and the solid line is a linear fit. Values of
regression slope are given when the goodness of fit (r2) is > 0.2, and p is significant at 85 % level
(p < 0.15)
4.5
77
Fig. 4.12 Scatter plots of abundance of birds against Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI) and Human Disturbance Index (HDI). Each data point represents average values at each
transect (n = 22), and the solid line is a linear fit. Values of regression slope are given when the
goodness of fit (r2) is > 0.2, and p is significant at 85 % level (p < 0.15)
Perhaps, for these bird guilds, there may be other ecological factors influencing
their abundance levels besides human disturbances.
In mammals, the density of arboreal animals is significantly impacted by disturbance levels, while terrestrial mammals that included a wide-ranging species such
as elephant and more common species such as wild pig did not show a significant
decline in their abundance.
Overall, these results clearly show a depressing effect of human disturbance on
several forms of biodiversity both in terms of species richness and abundance.
78
4.5
79
80
4.5
81
82
Fig. 4.13 Scatter plots of abundance of mammals against Normalised Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI) and Human Disturbance Index (HDI). Each data point represents average values at
each transect (n = 22), and the solid line is a linear fit. Values of regression slope are given when the
goodness of fit (r2) is > 0.2, and p is significant at 85 % level (p < 0.15)
4.5
83

Table 4.10 Mantel r
coefficients and p-values for
results of partial Mantel test
for each individual response
variable (various indices of
species diversity and species
abundance) for each
biodiversity component
(plants, birds and mammals)
Plants
Simpson index for trees
Alpha index for trees
Density of herbs
No. of tree species observed
No. of tree species estimated
Basal area for shrubs
No. of shrub species observed
Shannon index for trees
Shannon index for shrubs
Mantel r
pHDI |
NDVI
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.28
0.22
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.021
0.049
0.017
0.044
0.079
0.067
(continued)
84

Birds
Density of insecti-frugivores
Density of jungle babbler
No. of bird species estimated
Density of red-vented bulbul
Density of granivores
Density of hill myna
Mammals
Density of arboreal mammals
Mantel r
pHDI |
NDVI
0.26
0.26
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.019
0.011
0.054
0.025
0.089
0.058
0.19
0.068
pHDI | NDVI represents the Mantel r coefficients for

the correlation of each response variable and the
Human Disturbance Index (HDI) variable, after
accounting for Normalised Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI) variable. Only significant variables
(p < 0.1) are reported in this table
Chapter 5
Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusions
In the introductory chapter, we summarised the impacts of human pressures on the

distribution and abundance of large mammals, forest birds and vegetation across the
world. Chapter 4 (Results and Findings) provided quantitative evidence on the
effects of varied management regimes on different components of biodiversity in
each of the three levels of protection. This chapter is all about the implication of
results in the light of the data as well as other studies and policy positions, for the
future management of biodiversity and protected areas in India.
5.1
General Patterns of Effect of Human Disturbances

on Biodiversity
This study shows how different levels of human disturbance and environmental
variables alter the species composition, richness, diversity and abundance of the
three different components of biodiversity, namely, plants, birds and mammals.
Generally, these impacts are negative on a wide range of taxonomic groups, with a
few exceptions. Overall, the impacts seem to set back succession and facilitate
spread of more common species and even aggressive exotic species. Estimated values of species richness and abundance of the plants are higher for highly protected
and medium protected areas compared to least protected areas for trees (plants with
>30 cm GBH, Tables 4.2 (i) and 4.5 (ii)). Among shrubs (plants with >10 cm GGH
<30 cm) and herbs (<10 cm GGH), estimated species richness is highest for medium
protected areas followed by highly protected areas (Table 4.2 (ii) and (iii)). Medium
disturbance levels might facilitate opening up of areas and support growth of herbs
in particular. Although the difference in tree density across different protection
regimes is not significant, the basal area drastically varies. This is likely to indicate
removal (either legal or illegal) of mature and older trees, although they appear to
have been replaced by other species. Higher shrub abundance is found in highly

85
86
5 Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusions
protected areas (Table 4.5 (i)), and the highest herb abundance is for medium protected areas (Table 4.5 (iii)). The differences in abundance of these plant species
will affect the food availability and determine the birdmammal species that use
these habitats. The propositions that appear to be supported in our studies are that
human activities (logging, grazing, fuel wood and NTFP collection) can lead to a
replacement of entire groups of plant species (Hong et al. 1995) and affect the forest
structure as well as the regeneration abilities of plant communities (Murali et al.
1996; Mishra and Rawat 1998).
Comparing avian species richness across the different management regimes, it
was found that highest estimates of species richness are for highly and medium
protected areas (Table 4.3). For different guilds, the results suggest that highly protected areas are particularly important for galliformes and omnivores, and medium
protected areas are important for insectivores, granivores and insecti-frugivores
(Table 4.6). These results corroborate with other studies (Raman and Sukumar
2002; Sekerciolgu 2002), and it was proved that loss of bird guilds can have serious
consequences on the seed dispersal and forest growth and regeneration (Terborgh
et al. 1999; Wright et al. 2003). Abundance estimates for terrestrial mammals are
substantially higher for highly protected and medium protected areas, and the differences are particularly noticeable for arboreal mammals (Table 4.7). Previous
studies show that this area has been exposed to covert but intensive hunting pressures and that this traditional hunting practised by the locals is mainly responsible
for depressed animal densities (Madhusudan and Karanth 2000, 2002). Local tribal
populations hunt mainly for self-consumption and occasionally for the sale. Such
hunting is not limited to larger ungulates but also extends to small-bodied mammals
such as giant squirrel, bonnet macaque and langur. Elephants are not killed for meat
but are shot during crop-raiding or other conflict situations (Madhusudan and
Karanth 2000, 2002). All these types of local hunting practices are potentially detrimental to the large and the small mammal populations which over the time become
vulnerable to local extirpation (Robinson and Bennet 2004; Parry et al. 2009).
Mammals play a vital ecological role in the tropical forests by aiding in seed dispersal, pollination and maintaining functionality of ecological systems. Therefore, the
decline in mammalian abundance recorded in the present study (see Chap. 4) is
likely to have cascading effects on overall structure and functioning of these
forests.
For the first time, Human Disturbance Index has been created in this book using
human signs and activities. In comparing this index across the management categories, we find that the HPA has substantially lower human disturbance compared to
those at MPA and LPA (Table 4.8). These results corroborate with other studies
which found that high disturbance levels inside protected areas do lead to detrimental effects by creating edges and changes in both biotic and abiotic conditions
(Murcia 1995; Barve et al. 2005; Kumar and Shahabuddin 2005; Karanth et al.
2006; Vaidyanathan et al. 2010). The present study clearly demonstrates that different biodiversity components are negatively affected by human management regimes
and associated disturbances but in a different manner.
5.3
5.2
Implications for Management of Forests and Wildlife
87
Cumulative Potential Future Impacts
Birds, mammals and vegetation components are important for maintaining the
structure and the ecological processes within the overall biological community.
Lower levels of bird species richness and abundance will affect both the structure
and composition of the forest communities, particularly of individual tree species in
terms of pollination, seed dispersal and the control of insect pests. These effects of
human interventions on the biological communities will eventually prove to be detrimental for the functioning and productivity of these ecosystems in the longer run.
5.3
Implications for Management of Forests and Wildlife
Protected areas remain at the forefront of biodiversity conservation efforts globally

and in India (Bruner et al. 2003). The ability of protected areas to conserve biological diversity and maintain landscape ecological functioning is directly related to the
effectiveness of their individual management regimes.
This study demonstrates that management regimes and levels of anthropogenic
disturbances directly impact biological diversity and human disturbance levels.
Most protected areas in India support one or more forms of human uses, which are
not always managed effectively. In this context, relatively intact protected areas
such as Nagarahole have to be managed well to ensure that their present species
richness and abundances across different taxonomic groups are retained, and ecological productivity and functioning are not impaired.
It is important to note that none of the three categories of land management with
their histories can be described as a truly open-access localised management without any centralised authority. Such areas that are almost devoid of history of a centralised management do exist in the forms of revenue lands and sacred groves
(Bhagwath et al. 2005) within the same region. But, they exist only at the scale of a
few hundred hectares and do not support populations of any large-bodied, wideranging animals on a sustained basis. Such sacred grove areas, therefore, can at the
best be seen as a minor adjunct to the conservation of larger forested landscapes,
which are the only entities that can sustain viable populations of the larger vertebrates or even serve as repositories for repopulating the sacred groves with even
smaller more range-restricted species (Bali et al. 2007).
This study compares the effects of three distinct forest management histories
under the rubric of a state-administered land-management system across an ecologically homogenous area. However, we would hasten to add that most of the personnel administering this management system are from the region and the locality of
the study site and as such cannot be categorised as outsiders as opposed to indigenous people.
Furthermore, even the LPA category land in the study area has been under formal
protection by the State Forest Department under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, since
88
the late nineteenth century. The MPA and HPA areas have thereafter received additional layers of protection afforded by their notifications first as Game Sanctuaries
in 1955 and later as National Parks in 1974. That the vulnerable forms of biodiversity still occur in this landscape has much to do with the fact that this area was
designated and protected for the purpose of forest conservation as far back as 150
years and not because of the multiple-use extractive paradigm.
We believe the above observations have some relevance to the validity of two
much-debated models of conservation that are seen as contending duellist: the sustainable use versus preservation that is endlessly debated in the conservation literature. We propose that the issue as posed in the above dual alternative models is
far too simplistic to lead to practical solutions at specific localities. The evidence
from our study may, thus, have valuable pointers towards future management of
biodiversity in comparable or similar contexts but may not be relevant elsewhere if
the social and ecological contexts are very different. Thus, these conclusions given
below should be read together with this cautionary note.
We have evaluated the role of strictly protected areas in maintaining biodiversity,
with a particular focus on the practical efficacy of protection practices going on in
the Indian subcontinent, facing major challenges from high demographic and economic growth rates. We revisited here the important theme of creating inviolate
spaces or critical wildlife habitats in human-dominated landscape of India. This
theme has been recognised and highlighted by the Tiger Task Force (2005) set up by
the Honourable Prime Minister of India. This is also a central theme of national
laws that promote wildlife protection or, for that matter, purported goal of even laws
that aim to promote human welfare, such as the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
5.4
Monitoring Biodiversity Reliably
The importance of instituting reliable monitoring of biodiversity as an essential part

of effective management of protected areas in India is also a matter that needs to be
focused upon here. A major part of this study involved an application of such modern biodiversity monitoring methods, which have not been employed by managers
of forests and wildlife in India in the past.
A key feature of the basic approach used in the study was that it is rooted in
modern and well-established animal population sampling paradigms. These methods are founded on extensive practical and theoretical developments in the field of
wildlife population sampling, analysis and management as detailed in the foundation treaties (Seber 1982; Lancia et al. 1994; Thompson et al. 1998). These
approaches have culminated in more modern treatments taking advantage of recent
analytical revolutions in the fields of biostatistics and information technology
(Williams et al. 2002; Thompson 2004; Royle and Dorazio 2008).
At the very outset, we point out that the above-mentioned modern animalsampling approaches represent a radical departure from the traditional ways by
which government forest departments in India have approached the task of
5.5 Civil Society Participation in Conservation Monitoring
89
monitoring and assessing biodiversity. Forest departments in each state, through

their wildlife wings, are responsible for management of protected areas and their
biodiversities. Although the current monitoring methods are based on the visual
detections of animals or of their signs like tracks or dung, most of them suffer from
serious deficiencies (Karanth et al. 2003). These traditional monitoring methods are
flawed because they do not account for imperfect detections (not all animals in the
surveyed area are detected). They either assume detection probability = 1 (as in the
case of tiger sign surveys now carried out across the country) or the detection probability does not vary at all across the time or the space. Both of these are unrealistic
assumptions, proven to be incorrect repeatedly in the scientific literature (Williams
et al. 2002). Furthermore, traditional monitoring methods are not adequate to sample the overall area of interest spatially because they either assume unrealistically
that the entire area is sampled or sampled locations are selected on an ad hoc basis
(as in the case of the national surveys for tigers, prey and elephants that are being
carried out).
On the contrary, present study provides simple yet reliable tools for effective
monitoring of different biodiversity components.
5.5
Civil Society Participation in Conservation Monitoring
This study points out that some effects of disturbance on several forms of biodiversity are likely to be subtle and not markedly evident. Hence, it becomes absolutely
essential to monitor all forms of biodiversity using rigorous and proven approaches
for scientific evaluation of management effectiveness. This study showed that all
taxonomic components of biodiversity, such as plants, forest structure, mammals
and birds, can be monitored reliably and rigorously using simple practical field
surveys conducted locally. While the analyses involved are somewhat complex as
discussed in Chap. 3, the field implementation of these methodologies is well within
the capacity of the forest or wildlife managers, staff and local volunteers.
We found that current biological sampling methods such as both line-transect
and point-transect surveys under the distance-sampling paradigm (Buckland et al.
2001) are adequate for gathering monitoring data of the type I targeted here. There
is also another monitoring approach, based on capturerecapture sampling, named
occupancy modelling which included the data in the form of visual detections of
animals and plants as well as signs (Williams et al. 2002; Karanth et al. 2011) for a
recent application for the tiger monitoring. We see no barrier in implementing the
simple methods, such as distance sampling and occupancy sampling, for surveys of
animals or their signs by FD staff, although an assistance or an advice from expert
biologists may be required for the design and analysis. Here, the point we emphasise is that these methods are cost effective and easy to implement and have been
ignored so far.
Ultimately, the success or failure of biodiversity managers can only be assessed
by their results rather than efforts or money they expend. Consequently, direct
90
monitoring of human impacts and threat levels, as well as of various biodiversity

components, demonstrated as feasible in this study, is the most reliable way in
which conservation and management effectiveness can be judged, and the course
corrections can be made, if required. Given the poor track record of state agencies
to establish credible scientific monitoring of wildlife and biodiversity in India, it is
essential to think out of the box and to generate new models for monitoring biodiversity and its threats. The approach that we have adopted in this study was aligned
with the publicprivate partnership model of wildlife monitoring, developed by the
Centre for Wildlife Studies in the Nagarahole landscape since 1986. The essential
process components of this study, for example, included:
1. Clear formulation of study questions and goals
2. Identification of metrics (parameters) related to biodiversity components as well
as threats that needed to be estimated to answer the questions
3. Design of field surveys to adequately sample, model and estimate these specific
parameters, drawn from well-established estimation methodologies (e.g.
distance-sampling methods for bird and mammal densities; capturerecapture
surveys for species richness estimation). It is important that these methods fully
address the critical problems of imperfect detections and appropriate spatial
sampling using best available statistical models
4. Gathering of additional and relevant remote-sensing data for integration with
field survey data
5. Generation of parameter estimates under a rigorous statistical approach to draw
inferences from the study
The average protected area managers at various levels of the forest department
hierarchy in India cannot be expected to design and conduct such monitoring projects on their own. Therefore, an involvement of domain specialists with relevant
expertise must become integral to all national plans to monitor the biodiversity.
Furthermore, the model of involving participation of adequately trained local volunteers in the data-collection protocols improves data integrity and public trust in the
monitoring effort which have been somewhat lacking in the past efforts, such as the
now-abandoned pugmark census of tigers (Karanth et al. 2003) implemented by
the government during 19722004. On the other hand, such a publicprivate partnership in biodiversity monitoring enterprise, a model that we used for assessing
plant, bird and mammal communities, will, in fact, serve as an independent ecological audit of protected areas, with a greater social value for promoting better
governance of the protected areas.
5.6
Broader Policy Implications of the Study
Monitoring biological diversity is a mandate of the Convention on Biological

Diversity (2010). This requires establishing monitoring programmes at the appropriate scale and frequency that are linked to an adaptive management approach
5.6
Broader Policy Implications of the Study
91
(Salafsky et al. 2002; Nichols and Williams 2006). These efforts have to be based on
practical considerations such as funding, availability of trained manpower and the
socio-political context. Such an adaptive management framework is well suited for
monitoring biological systems and can contribute greatly towards an active, reasonable decision-making process by the reserve managers (Nichols and Williams
2006).
At present there are no standard prescribed methods at the level of individual
protected areas, for monitoring biodiversity in India or most other countries
(Hockings 2003). This study offers a general transect-based protocol that can be
adapted for establishing such a protocol in reserves within India and even in other
human-dominated landscapes. The methods used are easy to use and effectively
address critical issues of spatial sampling, imperfect detections, spatial scalability
and cost-effectiveness (Williams et al. 2002; MacKenzie et al. 2006).
Finally, we believe that at this critical juncture, when the future of biodiversity
conservation is at crossroads and its direction obscured by several untested
approaches devoid of field evidence, the protected area-centred approach provides
genuine hope for conserving all forms of biodiversity, as long as these areas are
effectively protected both de jure and de facto. Hence, a scientific evaluation of the
existing protected areas in India and their realignment and reconfiguration to include
all remaining critical biodiversity within the umbrella of the protectionist approach
is the critical need of the hour. While the questions as to which agency of the government, or some other local power structure, should be entrusted to render onground protection to these biodiversity-rich areas continue to be debated, the need
for such protection is clearly borne out by this work, in addition to mounting evidence from other empirical studies from across the world.
Appendices
Appendix I
List of Plant species encountered during vegetation survey plots in Nagarahole
MavukalDevmachi study region (scientific names follow Gamble 1935, while
common names are vernacular names of the species found in the region). Taxonomic
affiliations of unidentified species could not be confirmed, although they did not
match with any of the 204 species identified during the survey.
S. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Family
Acanthaceae
Acanthaceae
Acanthaceae
Acanthaceae
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthaceae
Anacardiaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Annonaceae
Apiaceae
Apocynaceae
Apocynaceae
Araceae
Araceae
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepiadaceae
Scientific name
Asteracantha longifolia
Barleria prionitis
Justicia simplex
Phaulopsis imbricata
Achyranthes aspera
Alternanthera sessilis
Amaranthus blitum
Mangifera indica
Annona reticulata
Miliusa tomentosa
Miliusa velutina
Polyalthia fragrans
Hydrocotyle javanica
Holarrhena pubescens
Ichnocarpus frutescens
Amorphophallus paeoniifolius
Colocasia esculenta
Cryptolepis buchanani
Gymnema hirsutum
Hemidesmus indicus
Common name
Kolamullu
Gorate
Kaadu bhangi
Kaadu bangidodda
Uttarani
Onagane soppu
Chilakariva
Maavu
Ramaphala
Hashirumara
Kaadu coffee
Jaala
Meenusoppu
Haalemara
Horekattu hambu
Kaadu chene
Kaadu kesa
Bottuballi
Kiratakanaballi
Nannari ambu
(continued)

SpringerBriefs in Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0911-2
93
94
S. No
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Appendices
Family
Asclepiadaceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Bignoniaceae
Bignoniaceae
Bombacaceae
Boraginaceae
Burseraceae
Celastraceae
Combretaceae
Combretaceae
Combretaceae
Combretaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Commelinaceae
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulaceae
Cordiaceae
Cordiaceae
Cucurbitaceae
Dilleniaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Dioscoreaceae
Ebenaceae
Ebenaceae
Ehretiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Scientific name
Leptadenia reticulata
Acanthospermum hispidum
Ageratum conyzoides
Chromolaena odorata
Elephantopus scaber
Synedrella nodiflora
Vicoa indica
Bombax malabaricum
Cynoglossum furcatum
Garuga pinnata
Celastrus paniculatus
Terminalia bellirica
Terminalia paniculata
Commelina asiatica
Commelina bulbifera
Commelina forskalaei
Commelina obliqua
Commelina benghalensis
Argyreia nervosa
Ipomoea muricata
Ipomoea cairica
Cordia macleodii
Cordia wallichii
Cucumis callosus
Dillenia pentagyna
Dioscorea alata
Dioscorea anguina
Dioscorea bulbifera
Dioscorea hispida
Dioscorea oppositifolia
Dioscorea pentaphylla
Dioscorea esculenta
Dioscorea floribunda
Diospyros melanoxylon
Diospyros montana
Ehretia laevis
Baliospermum montanum
Bridelia scandens
Glochidion zeylanicum
Jatropha curcas
Common name
Haleballi
Kurimullu
Appangane
Gandhi gulabi
Kaadu huchellu
Kaadu padche
Gabbihalhoo
Oodimara
Malali
Mullu booruga
Holeboodhi
Goddagida
Kukkeballi
Dindlu
Taare
Uluvematthi
Karimatthi
Dodda neerige nari
Kannesoppu
Neeru kannesoppu
Kaadu kannesoppu
Neeru ganneri
Haalambu
Marlami hambu
Passpailballi
Gonne hannu
Sollemara
Kamateballi
Naayithega
Koraneballi
Handi korne
Handi noore
Handi noorechikka
Naare genusu
Uregenusuballi
Genusuballi
Hakkigenusu
Thupra
Jagala ghanti
Bottumara
Sursa
Ulpa
Neeru yechi
Kachigida
(continued)
95
Appendices
S. No
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Family
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Flacourtiaceae
Flacourtiaceae
Scientific name
Kirganelia reticulata
Mallotus philippensis
Mallotus tetracoccus
Phyllanthus emblica
Phyllanthus lawii
Phyllanthus urinaria
Tragia involucrata
Acacia chundra
Acacia concinna
Acacia pennata
Albizia odoratissima
Bauhinia malabarica
Bauhinia racemosa
Butea parviflora
Butea monosperma
Caesalpinia bonduc
Cassia fistula
Cassia occidentalis
Cassia auriculata
Cassia siamea
Cassia tora
Crotalaria calycina
Crotalaria juncea
Crotalaria laevigata
Dalbergia lanceolaria
Dalbergia latifolia
Dalbergia paniculata
Dalbergia volubilis
Delonix regia
Desmodium triangulare
Erythrina stricta
Erythrina suberosa
Gliricidia sepium
Indigofera articulata
Mimosa pudica
Mimosa rubicaulis
Mucuna pruriens
Phaseolus adenanthus
Pongamia pinnata
Pueraria tuberosa
Teramnus labialis
Flacourtia montana
Flacourtia indica
Common name
Kiru nelli
Kunkumadamara
Poovatti
Kaadu nellimara
Hole nelli
Neela nelli
Angaraballi
Kaggali
Valleseege
Kaadu seege
Bilvaara
Basavana paada
Aayismara
Mutaga
Muthuga
Kenjanakudi
Kakke
Chogate dodda
Seemethangadi
Kaisya
Chogate
Kaadu sanabu
Sanabu
Kadu nugge chikka
Nayee beete
Beete
Balaga
Nahi beeteballi
Gulmohor
Jenukaddi
Mullu muruku
Mullu paarivaala
Gobbara kaddi
Gobbe gida
Muttidare muni
Mele mamsa
Naayi korene
Kaadu hesaru
Honge
Honne
Awareballi
Kaadu hurali
Kakkade
Kothree
(continued)
96
S. No
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
Appendices
Family
Hippocrateacaea
Hypoxidaceae
Icacinaceae
Lamiaceae
Lamiaceae
Lamiaceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lauraceae
Lecythidaceae
Liliaceae
Liliaceae
Lythraceae
Lythraceae
Lythraceae
Malvaceae
Malvaceae
Malvaceae
Malvaceae
Malvaceae
Malvaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Meliaceae
Menispermaceae
Menispermaceae
Menispermaceae
Moraceae
Moraceae
Myrsinaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Myrtaceae
Oleaceae
Oleaceae
Oleaceae
Oleaceae
Orobanchaceae
Oxalidaceae
Palmae
Poaceae
Scientific name
Salacia oblonga
Curculigo orchioides
Apodytes dimidiata
Ocimum gratissimum
Orthosiphon hispidus
Ocimum canum
Cinnamomum malabatrum
Litsea floribunda
Persea macrantha
Careya arborea
Asparagus racemosus
Smilax zeylanica
Lagerstroemia lanceolata
Lagerstroemia parviflora
Hibiscus lobatus
Kydia calycina
Sida acuta
Sida rhombifolia
Thespesia lampas
Urena lobata
Chloroxylon swietenia
Chukrasia tabularis
Cipadessa baccifera
Dysoxylum binectariferum
Melia dubia
Toona ciliata
Cissampelos pareira
Cyclea peltata
Stephania japonica
Ficus callosa
Ficus religiosa
Maesa indica
Eucalyptus globulus
Psidium guajava
Syzygium cumini
Chionanthus malabarica
Jasminum ritchiei
Olea dioica
Schrebera swietenioides
Aeginetia indica
Oxalis corniculata
Phoenix dactylifera
Bambusa arundinaceae
Common name
Not available
Handi genusu
Karimara
Rama tulasi
Kaadu thumbe
Naayi thulasi
Karapachekke
Manjatti
Kulurmaavu
Gowjalumara
Doseambu
Naayi betta
Neeru nandi
Nandi
Neerunandi
Kaadu bende
Bendaymara
Kaadu baralu
Baralu kaddi
Kaadu hatti
Antupurale
Kaadu kadle
Kalgarike
Sirka
Karadi
Kaadu bevu
Nogamara
Aluve ambu
Halaveballi
Halwaballi
Goli
Aralimara
Kaadu kere
Nilagiri
Seebekaaye
Nerale
Kallu thadle
Kaadu mallige
Thadle
Gantemara
Nela sampige
Huli soppu
Kajur
Biduru
(continued)
97
Appendices
S. No
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
Family
Poaceae
Poaceae
Polygonaceae
Ranunculaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rubiaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Rutaceae
Santalaceae
Sapindaceae
Sapindaceae
Sapindaceae
Sapotaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Solanaceae
Solanaceae
Sterculiaceae
Tiliaceae
Tiliaceae
Ulmaceae
Verbenaceae
Verbenaceae
Scientific name
Dendrocalamus strictus
Eleusine indica
Polygonum plebeium
Naravelia zeylanica
Ziziphus oenoplia
Ziziphus rugosa
Ziziphus xylopyrus
Ziziphus mauritiana
Ziziphus nummularia
Adina cordifolia
Anthocephalus chinensis
Borreria hispida
Canthium parviflorum
Hymenodictyon excelsum
Meyna laxiflora
Mitracarpus verticillatus
Mitragyna parvifolia
Pavetta indica
Randia spinosa
Randia uliginosa
Rauwolfia serpentina
Rubia cordifolia
Tamilnadia uliginosa
Atalantia monophylla
Glycosmis arborea
Glycosmis pentaphylla
Murraya koenigii
Naringi crenulata
Zanthoxylum rhetsa
Santalum album
Allophylus cobbe
Sapindus emarginatus
Schleichera trijuga
Madhuca latifolia
Mecardonia procumbens
Scoparia dulcis
Solanum indicum
Solanum torvum
Helicteres isora
Grewia hirsuta
Grewia tiliifolia
Celtis tetrandra
Gmelina arborea
Lantana camara
Common name
Kirubiduru
Kaadu ragi
Seeranege soppu
Eeriballi
Churimullu
Kotte gida
Chotte mullu
Elaichi
Kuli Elaichi
Arisina thega
Kadambamara
Aalum soppu
Kaadu kare
Doddimara
Hitkare
Kothialamsoppu
Kadagalu
Poveto
Meenu kare
Handikare
Owlpuri
Haraballi
Not available
Kaadu nimbe
Nahiamme
Nayeehemme
Karibevanu soppu
Naayi bela
Kallu muruk
Srigandha
Bangimara
Antuvala
Saagade
Hippe
Kaadu nasya
Kaadu sambara
Sunde
Sunde kaayi
Cowri
Garike kaddi
Tadasalu
Garikemara
Kuli
Mullugulabi
(continued)
98
S. No
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
Appendices
Family
Verbenaceae
Verbenaceae
Verbenaceae
Vitaceae
Vitaceae
Zingiberaceae
Zingiberaceae
Zingiberaceae
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Euphorbiaceae
Lamiaceae
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Scientific name
Stachytarpheta indica
Tectona grandis
Vitex altissima
Ampelocissus eriocladus
Ampelocissus tomentosa
Curcuma amada
Globba bulbifera
Zingiber neesanum
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Zaiphirum spp.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Alacia spp.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Phyllanthus spp.
Ocimum spp.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Common name
Kaadu utharange
Tega
Navaladi
Murleballi
Kaadu drakshi
Kaadu sunti
Kaadu konnari
Kaadu silengi
Kaadu kanakambari
Alelemara
Anebodde
Beelesoppu
Gaddegali sooppu
Kaadu alumsoppu
Kaadu hucchbhangi
Kaadu kanakaambra
Kaaduangare
Kaadu pillimara
Kolike Soppu
Korne Ambu
Nahi Mahoo
Pinarigida
Ramgenusu
Kaadu Gorate
Heri belli
Gargatti garike
Kaadu Chilik
Kotri (Kakkade)
Not available
Hamemara
Chippe gida
Hane bende
Sudeleh Mara
Not available
Bidda gida
Kaadu Korene
Karane Ambu
Kottatalli Beli
Kaadu Bangi Chikka
Not available
Kaadu Tulasi
Kona Chappe
Kaadu Belesoppu
Huch bangi
(continued)
99
Appendices
S. No
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
Family
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Scientific name
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Common name
Kaadu Chendu
Kaadu Garate
Kotta Thalli
Kaadu Chili
Kaadu Hale
Kaadu Bela
Nela Sagete
Chipamara
Malebelli
Appendix II
List of birds observed during point-transect surveys in the study region (scientific
names follow Rasmussen and Anderton 2005; food guilds are classified based on
food habits reported in Grimmett et al. 1999)
AQU = aquatic; FRU = frugivorous; FRU-GRA = frugi-granivorous; FRU-INS=
frugi-insectivorous; FRU-NEC = frugi-nectivorous; FRU-OMN = frugi-omnivorous;
GRA = granivorous; GRA-INS = grani-insectivorous; INS = insectivorous; INSGRA = insecti-granivorous; INS-OMN = insecti-omnivorous, INS-RAP = insectiraptor; NEC = nectivorous; NEC-FRU = necti-frugivorous; NEC-INS =
necti-insectivorous; OMN = omnivorous; RAP = raptor; SCA= scavenger.
Sl.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Common name
Alexandrine parakeet
Ashy drongo
Ashy woodswallow
Asian brown flycatcher
Asian fairy bluebird
Asian paradise flycatcher
Bay-backed shrike
Besra sparrowhawk
Black drongo
Black-crested bulbul
Black-hooded oriole
Black-lored yellow tit
Black-naped blue monarch
Black-naped oriole
Black-rumped flameback
Blue-faced malkoha
Blue-winged leafbird
Scientific name
Psittacula eupatria
Dicrurus leucophaeus
Artamus fuscus
Muscicapa dauurica
Irena puella
Terpsiphone paradisi
Lanius vittatus
Accipiter virgatus
Dicrurus macrocercus
Pycnonotus flaviventris
Oriolus xanthornus
Parus xanthogenys
Hypothymis azurea
Oriolus chinensis
Dinopium benghalense
Phaenicophaeus viridirostris
Chloropsis cochinchinensis
Food guild
FRU
INS
INS
INS
INS
INS
INS
RAP
INS
FRU-INS
FRU-INS
INS
INS
FRU-INS
INS
INS
INS
(continued)
100
Sl.
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Appendices
Common name
Blyths reed warbler
Booted warbler
Bronzed drongo
Brown hawk-owl
Brown shrike
Brown wood owl
Brown-cheeked fulvetta
Indian nuthatch
Chestnut-headed bee-eater
Common hawk-cuckoo
Common hoopoe
Common iora
Common myna
Common sandpiper
Common tailorbird
Common woodshrike
Coppersmith barbet
Crested hawk-eagle
Crested serpent-eagle
Crested treeswift
Crimson-fronted (Malabar) barbet
Dark-fronted babbler
Red junglefowl
Eastern cattle egret
Emerald dove
Eurasian collared dove
Eurasian eagle-owl
Eurasian golden oriole
Forest wagtail
Golden-fronted leafbird
Great tit
Greater flameback
Greater racket-tailed drongo
Green imperial pigeon
Greenish warbler
Grey-headed bulbul
Grey junglefowl
Grey wagtail
Grey-breasted prinia
Grey-headed starling
Grey-winged blackbird
Heart-spotted woodpecker
House crow
Scientific name
Acrocephalus dumetorum
Hippolais caligata
Dicrurus aeneus
Ninox scutulata
Lanius cristatus
Strix leptogrammica
Alcippe poioicephala
Sitta castanea
Merops leschenaulti
Hierococcyx varius
Upupa epops
Aegithina tiphia
Acridotheres tristis
Actitis hypoleucos
Orthotomus sutorius
Tephrodornis pondicerianus
Megalaima haemacephala
Spizaetus cirrhatus
Spilornis cheela
Hemiprocne coronata
Megalaima malabarica
Rhopocichla atriceps
Gallus gallus
Bubulcus coromandus
Chalcophaps indica
Streptopelia decaocto
Bubo bubo
Oriolus oriolus
Dendronanthus indicus
Chloropsis aurifrons
Parus major
Chrysocolaptes lucidus
Dicrurus paradiseus
Ducula aenea
Phylloscopus trochiloides
Pycnonotus priocephalus
Gallus sonneratii
Motacilla cinerea
Prinia hodgsonii
Sturnia malabarica
Turdus boulboul
Hemicircus canente
Corvus splendens
Food guild
INS
INS
INS
INS
INS
RAP
FRU-INS
INS-GRA
INS
INS
INS
INS
OMN
INS
INS
INS
FRU-INS
RAP
RAP
INS
FRU-INS
INS
GRA-INS
INS
GRA
GRA
RAP
FRU-INS
INS
NEC-INS
OMN
INS
INS
GRA
INS
FRU-INS
GRA-INS
INS
NEC-INS
OMN
INS
INS
OMN
(continued)
101
Appendices
Sl.
No.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
Common name
Indian pygmy woodpecker
Indian pond heron
Indian pitta
Indian roller
Indian scimitar-babbler
Jungle myna
Jungle owlet
Jungle babbler
Large cuckooshrike
Large woodshrike
Large-billed crow
Large-billed leaf warbler
Laughing dove
Lesser hill myna
Lesser pied kingfisher
Lesser whitethroat
Lesser yellownape
Little grebe
Little green bee-eater
Little spiderhunter
Little swift
Lotens sunbird
Malabar grey hornbill
Malabar parakeet
Malabar trogon
Malabar whistling thrush
Mountain imperial pigeon
Nilgiri flowerpecker
Northern house martin
Olive-backed pipit
Orange-headed thrush
Oriental honey buzzard
Oriental magpie-robin
Oriental scops owl
Oriental turtle dove
Oriental white-eye
Paddyfield pipit
Pale-billed flowerpecker
Pied flycatcher-shrike
Plum-headed parakeet
Pompadour green pigeon
Puff-throated babbler
Purple sunbird
Scientific name
Dendrocopos nanus
Ardeola grayii
Pitta brachyura
Coracias benghalensis
Pomatorhinus horsfieldii
Acridotheres fuscus
Glaucidium radiatum
Turdoides striata
Coracina macei
Tephrodornis gularis
Corvus macrorhynchos
Phylloscopus magnirostris
Streptopelia senegalensis
Gracula indica
Ceryle rudis
Sylvia curruca
Picus chloropus
Tachybaptus ruficollis
Merops orientalis
Arachnothera longirostra
Apus affinis
Cinnyris lotenius
Ocyceros griseus
Psittacula columboides
Harpactes fasciatus
Myophonus horsfieldii
Ducula badia
Dicaeum concolor
Delichon urbicum
Anthus hodgsoni
Zoothera citrina
Pernis ptilorhynchus
Copsychus saularis
Otus sunia
Streptopelia orientalis
Zosterops palpebrosus
Anthus rufulus
Dicaeum erythrorhynchos
Hemipus picatus
Psittacula cyanocephala
Treron affinis
Pellorneum ruficeps
Cinnyris asiaticus
Food guild
INS
AQU
INS
INS-OMN
NEC-INS
OMN
INS-RAP
FRU-INS
FRU-INS
NEC-INS
OMN
INS
GRA
OMN
INS-RAP
INS
INS
AQU
INS
NEC-INS
INS
NEC-INS
FRU-OMN
FRU
FRU-INS
INS-OMN
FRU
NEC-INS
INS
FRU-INS
INS-OMN
RAP
NEC-INS
RAP
GRA
NEC-INS
INS
NEC-INS
INS
FRU-GRA
FRU
INS
NEC-INS
(continued)
102
Sl.
No.
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
Appendices
Common name
Purple-rumped sunbird
Red spurfowl
Red-headed vulture
Red-vented bulbul
Red-wattled lapwing
Red-whiskered bulbul
Rose-ringed parakeet
Indian rufous babbler
Rufous treepie
Rufous woodpecker
Scaly-breasted munia
Orange minivet
Shikra
Small minivet
Small sunbird
Southern coucal
Speckled piculet
Spotted dove
Streak-throated woodpecker
Stork-billed kingfisher
Thick-billed flowerpecker
Tickells blue flycatcher
Tickells leaf warbler
Tree pipit
Velvet-fronted nuthatch
Verditer flycatcher
Vernal hanging parrot
White-bellied treepie
White-bellied blue flycatcher
White-bellied drongo
White-bellied woodpecker
White-browed fantail
White-cheeked barbet
White-rumped shama
White-throated kingfisher
Yellow-browed bulbul
Yellow-footed green pigeon
Yellow-fronted pied woodpecker
Scientific name
Leptocoma zeylonica
Galloperdix spadicea
Aegypius calvus
Pycnonotus cafer
Vanellus indicus
Pycnonotus jocosus
Psittacula krameri
Turdoides subrufa
Dendrocitta vagabunda
Micropternus brachyurus
Lonchura punctulata
Pericrocotus flammeus
Accipiter badius
Pericrocotus cinnamomeus
Leptocoma minima
Centropus sinensis
Picumnus innominatus
Streptopelia chinensis
Picus xanthopygaeus
Pelargopsis capensis
Dicaeum agile
Cyornis tickelliae
Phylloscopus affinis
Anthus trivialis
Sitta frontalis
Eumyias thalassinus
Loriculus vernalis
Dendrocitta leucogastra
Cyornis pallipes
Dicrurus caerulescens
Dryocopus javensis
Rhipidura aureola
Megalaima viridis
Copsychus malabaricus
Halcyon smyrnensis
Iole indica
Treron phoenicopterus
Dendrocopos mahrattensis
Food guild
NEC-INS
GRA-INS
SCA
OMN
INS-GRA
FRU-INS
FRU-GRA
INS
OMN
INS
GRA-INS
NEC-INS
RAP
INS
NEC
OMN
INS
GRA
INS
RAP
FRU-NEC
INS
INS
INS-GRA
INS
INS
NEC-FRU
OMN
INS
NEC-INS
INS
INS
FRU-INS
INS
INS-RAP
FRU-INS
FRU
INS
Bibliography
Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with
different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355366
Appayya MK (2001) Management plan for Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarahole) National Park (2000
2010). Karnataka Forest Department, Government of Karnataka, Mysore
Asner GP, Rudel TK, Aide TM, Defries R, Emerson R (2009) A contemporary assessment of
change in humid tropical forests. Conserv Biol 23:13861395
Bali A, Kumar A, Krishnaswamy J (2007) The mammalian communities in coffee plantations
around a protected area in the Western Ghats, India. Biol Conserv 139:93102
Balmford A, Bennun L, ten Brink B, Cooper D, Cote IM, Crane P, Dobson A et al (2005) The
convention on biological Diversitys 2010 target. Science 307:212213
Barve N, Kiran MC, Vanaraj G, Aravind NA, Rao D, Shaanker RU et al (2005) Measuring and
mapping threats to a wildlife sanctuary in southern India. Conserv Biol 19:122130
Bawa K, Rose J, Ganeshaiah KN, Barve N, Kiran MC, Umashaanker R (2002) Assessing biodiversity from space: an example from the Western Ghats, India. Conserv Ecol 6:7
Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of
the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517533
Bhagwat SA, Kushalappa CG, Williams PH, Brown ND (2005) A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves in the Western Ghats of India. Conserv Biol 19:18531862
Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA (1992) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, San Diego
BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife
International, Barcelona/Cambridge
BirdLife International (2011) Important bird areas factsheet: Nagarhole National Park. http://
www.birdlife.org. Accessed on 08 Jan 2011
Boulinier T, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Hines JE, Pollock KH (1998) Estimating species richness: the
importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79:10181028
Brandon K, Reford KH, Anderson SE (1998) Parks in peril: people, politics and protected areas.
Island Press, Washington, DC
Broadbent EN, Asner GP, Keller M, Knapp DE, Oliveira PJC, Silva JN (2008) Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol
Conserv 141:17451757
Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GA, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, Flick
P, Pilgrim F, Olfield S, Magin G, Hilton-Taylor C (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in the
hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv Biol 16:90909923
Brown KS, Hutchings RW (1997) Disturbance, fragmentation, and the dynamics of diversity in
amazonian forest butterflies. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical forest remnants

SpringerBriefs in Ecology, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0911-2
103
104
Bibliography
ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 91110
Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, Da Fonseca GA (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting
tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125128
Bruner A, Hanks J, Hannah L (2003) How much will effective protected area systems cost?
Presentation at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa
Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction
to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2004) Advanced
distance sampling. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Buckland ST, Magurran AE, Green RE, Fewster RM (2005) Monitoring change in biodiversity
through composite indices. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 360:243254
Burgman MA (1987) An analysis of the distribution of plants on granite outcrops in southern
Western Australia using Mantel tests. Vegetatio 71:7986
Burnham KP, Overton WS (1979) Robust estimation of population size when capture probabilities
vary among animals. Ecology 60(5):927936
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, Strien AV, Scharlemann JPW et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:11641168
Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E et al (2011) The functional role of
producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98(3):572592
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P et al (2012) Biodiversity
loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:5967
Castelletta M, Sodhi NS, Subaraj R (2000) Heavy extinctions of forest avifauna in Singapore: lessons for biodiversity conservation in Southeast Asia. Conserv Biol 14(6):18701880
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2006) Global mammal distributions, biodiversity hotspots, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(51):1937419379
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Sobern J, Salazar I, Fay JP (2005) Global mammal conservation: what
must we manage? Science 309(5734):603607
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Garcia A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated
modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1(5).
doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Champion HG, Seth SK (1968) A revised survey of forest types of India. Government of India
Publication, New Delhi
Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM et al (2000) Consequences of
changing biodiversity. Nature 405(6783):234242
Colwell RK (2009) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from
samples. Version 8.2. Users guide and application. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
Costanza R, Groot RD, Sutton P, Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewskia I et al (2014) Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152158
Daniels RJR, Gadgil M, Joshi NV (1995) Impact of human extraction on tropical humid forests in
the Western Ghats in Uttara Kannada, South India. J Appl Ecol 32(4):866874
Das A, Krishnaswamy J, Bawa KS, Kiran MC, Srinivas V, Kumar NS, Karanth KU (2006)
Prioritisation of conservation areas in the Western Ghats, India. Biol Conserv 133(1):1631
Datta A (2002) Protecting with people in Namdapha: threatened forests, forgotten people. In:
Shabuddin G, Rangarajan M (eds) Making the conservation work. Permanent Black, New
Delhi, pp 165209
Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) Habitat fragmentation experiments: a global survey and overview.
Conserv Biol 14:342355
Defries R, Karanth KK, Pareeth S (2010) Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(12):28702880
Development Core Team R (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Didham RK (1997) The influence of edge effects and forest fragmentation on leaf-litter invertebrates in central Amazonia. In: Laurance WF, Bierregaard RO (eds) Tropical forest remnants:
Bibliography
105
ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago, pp 5570
Dinerstein E, Loucks C, Heydlauff A, Wikramanayake E, Bryja G, Forrest J et al (2006) Setting
priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 20052015: a users guide. WWF,
WCS, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, Washington, DC
Directorate of Census Operation (2004) Primary census abstract. Technical report. Office of the
registrar general and census commissioner. Government of India, New Delhi
Dirzo R, Raven PH (2003) Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour
28(1):137167
Dobson A, Lodge D, Alder J, Cumming GS, Keymer J, Mcglade J et al (2006) Habitat loss, trophic
collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87(8):19151924
Donaldson J, Nanni I, Zachariades C, Kemper J (2002) Effects of habitat fragmentation on pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in Renosterveld shrublands of South Africa.
Conserv Biol 16(5):12671276
Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland
Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Science 171:12121217
Envis: Wildlife and Protected Areas (2007) Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. http://oldwww.
wii.gov.in/envis/pa_database.html
Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, Power ME, Berger J, Bond WJ et al (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301306
Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl
Manag 61(3):603610
Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100(1):6574
Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst
34(1):487515
Fox JW, Kerr B (2012) Analyzing the effects of species gain and loss on ecosystem function using
the extended Price equation partition. Oikos 121(2):290298
Gadgil M, Guha R (1992) This fissured land: an ecological history of India. Oxford University
Press, New Delhi
Gadgil M, Guha R (1995) Ecology and equity: use and abuse of nature in contemporary India.
Routledge, London
Gamble JD (1935) Flora of the presidency of madras, vol 3. Adlard & Son Ltd., London
Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (1995) Birds, body size and the threat of extinction. Philos Trans R Soc
B 347(1320):205212
Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Goldewijk KK (2003) Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity
loss. Proc R Soc B 270:12931300
Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Burgess ND (2013) Effectiveness of
terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol Conserv
161:230238
GOI (2004) National biodiversity strategy and action plan, India: final technical report of the
UNDP/GEF sponsored project. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India and
Kalpavriksh, New Delhi/Pune
GOI (2007) Protection, development, maintenance and research in biosphere reserves in India.
Ministry of Environment and forests, Government of Indi, New Delhi
GOI (2009) State of environment report. Ministry of Environment and forests, Government of
India, New Delhi
Gopalaswamy AM, Delampady M, Karanth KU et al (2015) An examination of index-calibration
experiments: counting tigers at macroecological scales. Methods Ecol Evol 6(9):10551066
Goslee SC, Urban DL (2007) The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological
data. J Stat Softw 22(7):119
Goswami VR, Madhusudan MD, Karanth KU (2007) Application of photographic capturerecapture modelling to estimate demographic parameters for male Asian elephants. Anim Conserv
10:391399
Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR, Mace GM, Reynolds JD, Turner RK (2005) A framework for
improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the world summit on sustainable development. Conserv Biol 19(1):5665
106
Bibliography
Greenwood S, Schnare M, Gray M (1996) Molecular characterization of U3 small nucleolar RNA

from the early diverging protist, Euglena gracilis. Curr Genet 30(4):338346
Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T (1999) Birds of the Indian subcontinent. Oxford University
Press, New Delhi
Hector A, Bagchi R (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem multi-functionality. Nature 448:188190
Heywood V (ed) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hines JE (1996) SPECRICH Software to compute species abundance from empirical species abundance distribution data. USGS-PWRC. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/specrich.html
Hockings M (2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas.
Bioscience 53(9):823832
Hoffmann M, Hilton-Taylor C, Angulo A, Bohm M, Brooks TM, Butchart SH et al (2010) The
impact of conservation on the status of the worlds vertebrates. Science 330:15031509
Hong SK, Nakagoshi N, Kamada M (1995) Human impacts on pine-dominated vegetation in rural
landscapes in Korea and Western Japan. Vegetatio 116:161172
Horne R, Hickey J (1991) Ecological sensitivity of Australian rainforests to selective logging. Aust
J Ecol 16:119129
IUCN/WCMC (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland/
Cambridge
IUCN: The World Conservation Union (2003) 2003 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN,
Cambridge
Jathanna D, Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Goswami VR, Vasudev D, Karanth KK (2015) Reliable
monitoring of elephant populations in the forests of India: analytical and practical considerations. Biol Conserv 187:212220
Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol Conserv
142(10):21662174
Jones CG, Ostfeld RS, Richard MP, Schauber EM, Wolff JO (1998) Chain reactions linking acorns
to Gypsy moth outbreaks and lyme disease risk. Science 279:10231026
Karanth KU (1995) Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using
capture-recapture models. Biol Conserv 71(3):333338
Karanth KU (1998) Sacred groves for the 21st century. Seminar 466:2531
Karanth KU (2002) Nagarahole: limits and opportunities in wildlife conservation. In: Terborgh J,
Schaik CV, Davenport L, Rao M (eds) Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical
nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 189202
Karanth KK (2007) Making resettlement work: the case of Indias Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Biol
Conserv 139(3):315324
Karanth KU, Karanth KK (2007) Free to move: conservation and resettlement in the Western
Ghats of Karnataka, India. In: Redford KH, Fearn E (eds) Protected areas and human displacement: a conservation perspective, Working Paper 29. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York
Karanth KU, Kumar NS (2005) Distribution and dynamics of tiger and prey population in
Maharashtra India. Final technical report. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore
Karanth KU, Nichols JD (1998) Estimating tiger densities in India from camera trap data using
photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79(8):28522862
Karanth KU, Sunquist ME (1992) Population structure, density and biomass of large herbivores in
the tropical forests of Nagarahole, India. J Trop Ecol 8:2135
Karanth KU, Sunquist ME (1995) Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forests.
J Anim Ecol 64:439450
Karanth KU, Sunquist ME, Chinnappa KM (1999) Long term monitoring of tigers: lessons from
Nagarahole. In: Seidensticker J, Christice S, Jackson P (eds) Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 114122
Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Chundawat RS (2002a) Field surveys: assessing spatial distributions of
tigers and prey. In: Karanth KU, Nichols JD (eds) Monitoring tigers and their prey: a manual
for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies,
Bangalore, pp 3950
Karanth KU, Thomas L, Kumar NS (2002b) Field surveys: estimating absolute densities of prey
species using line transect sampling. In: Karanth KU, Nichols JD (eds) Monitoring tigers and
Bibliography
107
their prey: a manual for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for
Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, pp 111120
Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Seidenstricker J, Dinerstein E, Smith JLD et al (2003) Science deficiency
in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India. Anim Conserv
6(2):141146
Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Kumar NS, Link WA, Hines JE (2004) Tigers and their prey: predicting
carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(14):48544858
Karanth KK, Curran LM, Reuning-Scherer JD (2006) Village size and forest disturbance in Bhadra
Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. Biol Conserv 128(2):147157
Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Gopalswamy A, Srinivas V (2008) Distribution and dynamics of tiger
and prey populations in Karnataka. Final technical report, wildlife conservation society India
program. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore
Karanth KK, Nichols JD, Karanth KU, Hines JE, Christensen NL (2010) The shrinking ark: patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proc R Soc B 277:19711979. doi:10.1098/
rspb.2010.0171
Karanth KU, Nichols JD, Kumar NS (2011) Estimating tiger abundance from camera trap data:
field surveys and analytical issues. In: OConnel AF, Nichols JD, Karanth KU (eds) Camera
traps in animal ecology. Springer, Tokyo, pp 97117
Kazmierczak K, van Perlo B (2000) A field guide to the birds of the Indian subcontinent. Yale
University Press, New Haven
Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2010) A matrix-calibrated species-area model for predicting biodiversity
losses due to land-use change. Conserv Biol 24(4):9941001
Kothari A (2006) Community conserved areas: towards ecological and livelihood security.
Community conserved areas. In Lockwood 2006
Kothari A, Pande P, Singh S, Variava D (1989) Management of national parks and sanctuaries in
India: a status report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, Environmental Studies
Division, New Delhi
Kothari A, Singh N, Suri S (1996) People and protected areas in India: towards participatory conservation. Sage Publications, New Delhi
Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Pivinen J (2005) Predicting the risk of extinction from shared
ecological characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(6):19631967
Krauss J, Bommarco R, Guardiola M, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Kuussaari M et al (2010) Habitat
fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels.
Ecol Lett 13(5):597605
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?
Ecol Lett 8(5):468479
Krishnaswamy J, Bawa KS, Ganeshaiah K, Kiran MC (2009) Quantifying and mapping biodiversity and ecosystem services: utility of a multi-season NDVI based Mahalanobis distance surrogate. Remote Sens Environ 113:857867
Kumar R, Shahabuddin G (2005) Effects of biomass extraction on vegetation structure, diversity
and composition of forests in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Environ Conserv 32:248259
Kumar R, Shahabuddin G (2006) Consequences of rural biomass extraction for bird communities
in an Indian tropical dry forest and the role of vegetation structure. Conserv Soc 4:562591
Kumara H, Singh M (2004) The influence of differing hunting practices on the relative abundance
of mammals in two rainforest areas of the Western Ghats, India. Oryx 38:17
Lancia RA, Nichols JD, Pollock KN (1994) Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. In: Bookhout TA (ed) Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.
The Wildlife Society Bethesda, Bethesda, pp 215253
Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Ferreira LV, Rankin-de Merona JM, Gascon C, Lovejoy TE (1997)
Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments. Science 278:11171118
Laurance WF, Useche DC, Rendeiro J, Kalka M, Bradshaw CJA, Sloan SP et al (2012) Averting
biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489:290294
Lawes MJ, Mealin PE, Piper SE (2000) Patch occupancy and potential metapopulation dynamics
of three forest mammals in fragmented Afromontane forest in South Africa. Conserv Biol
14:10881098
108
Bibliography
Legendre P, Fortin MJE (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:107138
Lindenmayer DB, Noss RF (2006) Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 20:949958
Lloyd P, Little RM, Crowe TM (2000) The effects of investigator disturbance on arid-zone groundnesting birds. J Field Ornithol 71:227235
Loreau M, Mouquet N, Gonzalez A (2003) Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous
landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:1276512770
Macarthur RH, Macarthur JW (1961) On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594598
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LA, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy modeling and estimation. Elsevier, San Diego
Madhusudan MD, Karanth KU (2000) Hunting for an answer: local hunters and large mammal
conservation in India. In: Robinson JG, Bennett EL (eds) Hunting for sustainability in tropical
forests. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 339355
Madhusudan MD, Karanth KU (2002) Local hunting and the conservation of large mammals in
india. AMBIO: A J Hum Environ 31:4954
Madhusudan MD, Karanth KU (2005) Local hunting and large mammal conservation. In: Jhala
YV, Chellam R, Qureshi Q (eds) Wildlife conservation, research and management, Technical
publication no. RR-05/001. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, pp 6067
Madhusudan MD, Mishra C (2003) Why big, fierce animals are threatened: conserving large mammals in densely populated landscapes. In: Saberwal V, Rangarajan M (eds) Battles over nature:
science and politics of conservation. Permanent Black, New Delhi, pp 3155
Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Malcolm J, Ray JC (2000) Influence of timber extraction routes on central african small-mammal
communities, forest structure, and tree diversity. Conserv Biol 14:16231638
Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer
Res 27:209220
Meffe GK, Carroll CR (1994) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, 600 pp
Middleton BA (2003) Ecology and objective based management: case study of the Keoladeo
National Park, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. In: Saberwal V, Rangarajan M (eds) Battles over nature:
science and the politics of conservation. Permanent Black, New Delhi, pp 86116
Miller JR, Cale P (2000) Behavioral mechanisms and habitat use by birds in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Ecol Appl 10:17321748
Milner-Gulland EJ, Bukreeva OM, Coulson T, Lushchekina AA et al (2003) Conservation: reproductive collapse in Saiga antelope harems. Nature 422:135
Mishra A (2001) Working plan: Virajpet forest division 200102 to 201011. Government of
Karnataka, Virajpet
Mishra C, Rawat GS (1998) Livestock grazing and biodiversity conservation: comments on
Saberwal. Conserv Biol 12:712714
Mondol S, Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Gopalaswamy AM, Andheria A, Ramakrishnan U (2009)
Evaluation of non-invasive genetic sampling methods for estimating tiger population size. Biol
Conserv 142:23502360
Murali KS, Shankar U, Shaanker RU, Ganeshaiah KN, Bawa KS (1996) Extraction of non-timber
forest products in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 2. Impact of NTFP extraction on
regeneration, population structure, and species composition. Econ Bot 50(3):252269
Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends Ecol
Evol 10:5862
Murthy IK, Murali KS, Hegde GT, Bhat PR, Ravindranath NH (2002) A comparative analysis of
regeneration in natural forests and joint forest management plantations in Uttara Kannada district, Western Ghats. Curr Sci 83:13581364
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots
for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853858
Bibliography
109
Nagendra H (2007) Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci
104:1521815223
Nagendra H, Rocchini D, Ghate R (2010) Beyond parks as monoliths: spatially differentiating
park-people relationships in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve in India. Biol Conserv
143:29002908
Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668673
Norton-Griffiths M, Southey C (1995) The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in
Kenya. Ecol Econ 12:125139
Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol
4:355364
Noss RF (1999) Conservation assessments: a synthesis. In: Ricketts TH, Dinerstein E, Olson DM,
Loucks C, Eichbaum W, Kavanagh K et al (eds) Terrestrial ecoregions of North America: a
conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 8992
Noss RF, Csuti B (1997) Habitat fragmentation. In: Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of
conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, pp 269304
Noss RF, Csuti B, Groom MJ (2006) Habitat fragmentation. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll RC
(eds) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
pp 213251
Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2007) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the
ground, and in the laboratory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:1922419231
Otis DL, Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on
closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:1135
Parry L, Barlow J, Peres CA (2009) Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests.
Conserv Biol 23(5):12701280
Pascal JP, Shyam-Sunder S, Meher-Homji VM (1982) Forest map of South India (MercaraMysore). French Institute, Pondicherry
Pathak N, Bhatt S, Tasneem B, Kothari A, Borrini-Feyerabend G (2004) Community conservation
areas: a bold frontier for conservation. World Conservation Union, Gland
Pereira HM, Daily GC (2006) Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology
87(8):18771885
Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Martins IS (2012) Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the
unknown. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:2550
Pimm SL, Raven P (2000) Extinction by numbers. Nature 403:843845
Rahmani A (2003) Conservation outside protected areas. In: Saberwal V, Rangarajan M (eds)
Battles over nature: science and politics of conservation. Permanent Black, New Delhi,
pp 117138
Raman TRS (2003) Assessment of census techniques for interspecific comparisons of tropical
rainforest bird densities: a field evaluation in the Western Ghats, India. Ibis 145:921
Raman TRS, Sukumar R (2002) Responses of tropical rainforest birds to abandoned plantations,
edges and logged forest in the Western Ghats, India. Anim Conserv 5:201216
Rangarajan M, Madhusudan MD, Shahabuddin G (2014) Nature without borders. Orient
Blackswan, Delhi
Rasmussen PC, Anderton JC (2005) Birds of South Asia: the ripley guide, vol 1 & 2. Smithsonian
Institution/Lynx Edicions, Washington, DC/Barcelona
Redford KH (1992) The empty forests. Bioscience 42:412422
Reyers B, Farrell PJO, Cowling RM, Gosh BN, Le Maitre DC, Volk JHJ (2009) Ecosystem services land use change and stakeholder: finding a suitable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity
hotspot. Ecol Soc 14:38
Ritters K, Wickham J, ONeill R, Jones B, Smith E (2000) Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conserv Ecol 4:3
Robinson JG, Bennett EL (2000) Carrying capacity limits to sustainable hunting in tropical forests.
In: Robinson JG, Bennett EL (eds) Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia
University Press, New York, pp 1330
Robinson JG, Bennett EL (2004) Having your wildlife and eating it too: an analysis of hunting
sustainability across tropical ecosystems. Anim Conserv 7(4):397408
110
Bibliography
Rodgers WA, Panwar HS (1988) Planning a protected area network in India, vol 2. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehra Dun
Rodrigues AS, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L et al (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428(6983):640643
Royle JA, Dorazio RM (2008) Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology: the analysis of data
from populations, metapopulations and communities. Academic Press, San Diego
Sagar R, Singh JS (2004) Local plant species depletion in a tropical dry deciduous forest of northern India. Environ Conserv 31:5562
Salafsky N, Margoluis R, Redford KH, Robinson JG (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conserv Biol
16:14691479
Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human
footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52(10):891904
Schipper J, Chanson JS, Chiozza F, Cox NA, Hoffmann M, Katariya V et al (2008) The status of
the worlds land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science
322:225230
Schwartzman S, Zimmerman B (2005) Conservation alliances with indigenous peoples of the
Amazon. Conserv Biol 19(3):721727
Seber GAF (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. MacMillan,
New York
Sekercioglu CH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (2004) Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:1804218047
Shahabuddin G, Prasad S (2004) Assessing ecological sustainability of non-timber forest produce
extraction: the Indian scenario. Conserv Soc 2:235250
Shahabuddin G, Rao M (2010) Do community-conserved areas effectively conserve biological
diversity? Global insights and the Indian context. Biol Conserv 143(12):29262936
Singh JS, Kushwaha SPS (2008) Forest biodiversity and its conservation in India. Int For Rev
10:292304
Sodhi NS, Liow LH, Bazzaz FA (2004) Avian extinctions from tropical and subtropical forests.
Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35(1):323345
Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Clements R, Wanger TC, Hill JK, Hamer KC et al (2010) Conserving Southeast
Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(10):23752384
Somanathan H, Borges RM (2000) Influence of exploitation on population structure, spatial distribution and reproductive success of dioecious species in a fragmented cloud forest in India. Biol
Conserv 94(2):243256
Stachowicz JJ, Bruno JF, Duffy JE (2007) Understanding the effects of marine biodiversity on
communities and ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38(1):739766
Stork NE, Coddington JA, Colwell RK, Chazdon RL, Dick CW et al (2009) Vulnerability and
resilience of tropical forest species to land-use change. Conserv Biol 23:14381447
Terborgh J (1989) Where have all the birds gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton
Terborgh J (1990) Mixed flocks and polyspecific associations: costs and benefits of mixed groups
to birds and monkeys. Am J Primatol 21:87100
Terborgh J, Peres CA (2002) The problem of people in parks. In: Terborgh J, von Schaik C,
Davenport L, Madhu R (eds) Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature.
Island Press, Washington, DC
Terborgh J, van Schaik C (2002) Why the world needs parks. In: Terborgh J, van Schaik C,
Davenport L, Rao M (eds) Making the parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature.
Island press, Washington, DC, pp 314
Terborgh J, Winter B (1983) A method for siting parks and reserves with special reference to
Columbia and Ecuador. Biol Conserv 27:4558
Terborgh J, Estes J, Paquet P, Ralls K, Boyd D, Miller B, Noss R (1999) Role of top carnivores in
regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In: Soule M, Terborgh J (eds) Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Covelo
Terborgh J, van Schaik C, Davenport L, Rao M (2002) Making the parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island press, Washington, DC
Bibliography
111
Thiollay JM (1994) The role of traditional agro-forests in the conservation of rain forest bird diversity in Sumatra. Conserv Biol 9:335353
Thiollay JM (1997) Disturbance, selective logging and bird diversity: a neotropical forest study.
Biodivers Conserv 6(8):11551173
Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL et al (2010) Distance
software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size.
J Appl Ecol 47(1):514
Thompson WL (2004) Sampling rare or elusive species: concepts, designs, and techniques for
estimating population parameters. Island Press, Washington, DC
Thompson WL, White GC, Gowan C (1998) Monitoring vertebrate populations. Academic Press,
San Diego
Turner IM, Chua KS, Ong JSY, Soong BC, Tan HTW (1996) A century of plant species loss from
an isolated fragment of lowland tropical rain forest. Conserv Biol 10:12291244
Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Gascon C, Gibbs HK, Lawrence KS (2012) Global biodiversity conservation and the alleviation of poverty. Bioscience 62:8592
Vaidyanathan S, Krishnaswamy J, Kumar NS, Dhanwatey H et al (2010) Patterns of tropical forest
dynamics and human impacts: views from above and below the canopy. Biol Conserv
143:28812890
Velho N, Karanth KK, Laurance WF (2012) Hunting: a serious and understudied threat in India, a
globally significant conservation region. Biol Conserv 148:210215
Vie J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN (2009) Wildlife in a changing world: an analysis of the 2008
IUCN Red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland
Walston J, Robinson JG, Bennett EL, Breitenmoser U, Goodrich J et al (2010) Bringing the tiger
back from the brink the six percent solution. PLoS Biol 8:e1000485. doi:10.1371/journal.
pbio.1000485
Wang J, Price KP, Rich PM (2001) Spatial patterns of NDVI in response to precipitation and temperature in the central Great Plains. Int J Remote Sens 22:38273844
Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Callaway RM, Van der Putten WH (2011) Terrestrial ecosystem
responses to species gains and losses. Science 332:12731277
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:6773
Wiegand T, Revilla E, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population
dynamics. Conserv Biol 19:108121
Wilkie D, Shaw E, Rotberg F, Morelli G, Auzel P (2000) Roads, development, and conservation in
the Congo Basin. Conserv Biol 14:16141622
Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal population.
Academic Press, San Diego
Wilson DE, Reeder DM (eds) (2005) Mammal species of the world, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore
Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, Klausmeyer KR et al (2007) Conserving biodiversity
efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol 5(9):e223. doi:10.1371/journal.
pbio.0050223
Wright SJ, Muller-Landau HC, Condit R, Hubbell SP (2003) Gap-dependent recruitment, realized
vital rates, and size distributions of tropical trees. Ecology 84(12):31743185
Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time.
Trends Ecol Evol 16:446453
Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Zenner EK, Hibbs DE (2000) A new method for modeling the heterogeneity of forest structure. For
Ecol Manag 129:7587

Bio Diversity PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bio Diversity PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN ECOLOGY

SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10157

G. Vishwanatha Reddy K. Ullas Karanth

and activities. This rigorous understanding of true human impacts is critical to

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India ...............................................

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses ................................................

Survey Design, Field and Analytical Methods ........................................

Field Survey Methods ........................................................................

Results and Findings .................................................................................

Synthesis, Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 103

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

Global Context of Biodiversity Loss

Global biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate (Meffe and Carroll 1994;

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

1.1 Global Context of Biodiversity Loss

Challenges Posed by Human Impacts on Biodiversity

Human impacts on biodiversity, especially on larger vertebrates in human-dominated

Specific Drivers of Biodiversity Loss

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

Habitat fragmentation leads to the loss of biodiversity in smaller and isolated

1.1 Global Context of Biodiversity Loss

Worldwide local and market-based hunting of terrestrial vertebrates is a major

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

Impacts of Other Extractive Activities

Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches

Establishment of protected areas or nature reserves has been a major strategy to

The Conservation Scenario in India

1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches

Protected Areas in India: National Parks and Sanctuaries

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

Community Conserved Areas

Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) may be either traditionally or legally declared

1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches

Patterns of Ownership and Management of Protected

Worldwide, different forms of forest management and conservation strategies have

Management of Protected Areas in the Indian Context

Role of Wildlife Protected Areas in India

Integrating Surveys, Monitoring and Management

Successful biodiversity conservation can only be based on reliable measures that

1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: Alternative Approaches

P = the detection probability; the probability that an individual animal or a species

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses

The NagaraholeKallahallaThitimathi sub-landscape was chosen as our study site

Geographic Location, Topography and Soils

Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses

2.1 Study Area

Vegetation of the Study Area

Wildlife and Biodiversity in the Study Area

Nagarahole National Park is rich in wildlife with 38 species of large mammals,

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses

2.1 Study Area

Human Impacts on Wildlife and Habitats

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses

Forest Management History

2.1 Study Area

Delineation of Management Regimes

Study Species, Habitats and Hypotheses

Research Hypotheses and Objectives

2.2 Research Hypotheses and Objectives

Target Biodiversity Components